People v. Young CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 22, 2015C075380California1,286 words

Opinion

Opinion

DISCUSSION

I

Defendant’s Due Process Challenges to the One-year Outpatient Requirement in Section 1026.2 As noted in our introduction, defendant appears to raise procedural and substantive due process challenges to section 1026.2’s one-year outpatient requirement. A. The Outpatient Requirement In Beck, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th 1676, the First District explained that “[a] person committed to a state hospital after a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity may apply for conditional release after a period of 180 days from the date of the order of

Defendant’s application filed in propria persona on December 2, 2013, is the same one defendant filed in propria persona on June 27, 2013. Both are dated June 21, 2013.

3 commitment. (. . . §§ 1026, subd. (a), & 1026.2, subd. (d).) Subdivision (e) of . . . section 1026.2 establishes a two-step procedure for processing such an application. First, the court holds a hearing to determine whether the applicant ‘would be a danger to the health and safety of others, due to mental defect, disease or disorder, if under supervision and treatment in the community.’ If the court finds no impediment, it shall order the person to be placed in a…

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.