People v. Short CA1/5

DISCUSSION

In reviewing appeals challenging the sufficiency of evidence to extend a section 1026.5 commitment, “ ‘ “we apply the test used to review a judgment of conviction; therefore, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the extension order to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the requirements of section 1026.5[, subdivision ](b)(1) beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.]” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] A single psychiatric opinion that an individual is dangerous because of a mental disorder constitutes substantial evidence to support an extension of the defendant’s commitment under section 1026.5. [Citation.]” (People v. Bowers (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 870, 878–879.) Expert testimony is considered substantial evidence if it is supported by “relevant, probative” facts and reasoning, rather than “ ‘guess, surmise or conjecture.’ ” (Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1096, 1110; People v. Zapisek (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1168.) Under section 1026.5, subdivision (a)(1), a person committed to a state hospital after being found not guilty by reason of insanity may be kept in custody no longer than the maximum term…