Cross

This appeal is from an order denying appellant outpatient status following a hearing under Penal Code section 1604, 1 appealable as an order after judgment affecting the substantial rights of a party. (§ 1237, subd. (b); People v. Sword (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 614, 619, fn. 2 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ].) We review the order for abuse of discretion. (Id. at pp. 619, fn. 2, 626.) Finding an abuse of discretion, we reverse.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 1991, appellant Earl Bernard Cross was charged with murder, and it was alleged he personally used a knife. Appellant pleaded guilty to second degree murder and admitted the knife use. Under section 1026, the trial court found appellant was not sane at the time he committed the offense and adjourned the criminal proceedings. On July 19, 1995, the court ordered appellant committed and recommended placement at Patton State Hospital until his sanity was restored, with confinement not to exceed life.

On September 24, 2003, after receiving an August 25, 2003 progress report from Patton State Hospital recommending outpatient status, the trial court ordered a formal hearing regarding appellant’s conditional release under the restrictions set…

I respectfully dissent because I disagree with the majority that the trial court denied outpatient status on the ground that appellant was still afflicted with the disease that brought about the murder of Flowers in 1991. The record shows that the court addressed the issue whether appellant poses a danger, that it resolved this matter adversely to appellant, and that this was the reason that the court denied appellant’s application for outpatient status.

I find that the court weighed all the evidence in a careful and thoughtful manner and found that appellant does not meet the standard for release to outpatient status. After noting, as appears in the court’s opinion, that appellant “still has that disease,” the trial court went on to state: “And what the testimony is[,] is that there is a basis to believe he won’t hurt anybody. There is a basis to believe that if he doesn’t take his—if he does, yes, take his medicine. [j[] The bottom Une is I don’t think we have it here. So I’m denying it. Okay.” This shows that the court was addressing the question whether appellant was dangerous. A Uttle later, the trial court made clear that it thought that appellant posed a danger. After…

This appeal is from an order denying appellant outpatient status following a hearing under Penal Code section 1604, [1] appealable as an order after judgment affecting the substantial rights of a party. (§ 1237, subd. (b); People v. Sword (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 614, 619, fn. 2 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 .) We review the order for abuse of discretion. ( Id. at pp. 619, fn. 2, 626, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 .) Finding an abuse of discretion, we reverse.

In 1991, appellant Earl B. Cross was charged with murder, and it was alleged he personally used a knife. Appellant pleaded guilty to second degree murder and admitted the knife use. Under section 1026, the trial court found appellant was not sane at the time he committed the offense and adjourned the criminal proceedings. On July 19, 1995, the court ordered appellant committed and recommended placement at Patton State Hospital until his sanity was restored, with confinement not to exceed life.

On September 24, 2003, after receiving an August 25, 2003 progress report from Patton State Hospital recommending outpatient status, the trial court ordered a formal hearing regarding appellant's conditional release under the restrictions set…