Sheek

People v. Sheek

Good Law
122 Cal. App. 4th 1606·19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 737·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1722·2004 Daily Journal DAR 12627·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9250
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 14, 2004E034840California2,324 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hollenhorst, J.

The People contend that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant defendant’s Penal Code section 2966, subdivision (b), petition on the ground of insufficiency of evidence without conducting a jury trial and erred as a matter of law in granting the petition.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner filed a petition under section 2966, subdivision (b) challenging the Board of Prison Terms’ certification that he met all six criteria for commitment for treatment as a condition of parole under the Mentally Disordered Offender Act (MDO Act, § 2960 et seq.). Before trial, defendant filed a motion in limine on the ground of insufficiency of evidence as to the MDO criterion requiring 90 days of treatment for the severe mental disorder in the year prior to parole or release. The trial court required the People to make an offer of proof concerning that criterion. The trial court conducted a hearing under Evidence Code section 402, at which the People presented the testimony of Dr. Mendel Feldsher, a psychiatrist who had evaluated defendant to determine whether he met the requirements for certification as an MDO.

Dr. Feldsher concluded that defendant suffered from two mental…

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.