Haynie

People v. Haynie

Caution
11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 163·116 Cal. App. 4th 1224·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 352·2004 Daily Journal DAR 3453·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2365
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 18, 2004F043306California2,252 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vartabedian, J.

Larry Darnell Haynie appeals from an order extending his commitment to a state hospital pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.5, which authorizes extended commitment for treatment of a person found not guilty of a felony by reason of insanity (§ 1026). The sole issue raised is novel—whether the privilege against self-incrimination bars the prosecution from questioning Haynie about his mental state at the commitment extension hearing. We conclude that it does under the plain language of section 1026.5, subdivision (b)(7).

BACKGROUND

In 1989, Haynie was found not guilty by reason of insanity of burglary and was committed to the state hospital. On December 18, 2002, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a petition to extend Haynie’s commitment pursuant to section 1026.5.

Statutory Scheme

Under the statutory scheme for commitment of persons found not guilty of a felony because of legal insanity, a person may not be kept in actual custody longer than the maximum state prison term to which he could have been sentenced for the underlying offense. (§ 1026.5, subd. (a); People v. Crosswhite (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 494, 501 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 ].) At the end of that period,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.