Tran

In the companion case of People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113 [ 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 458 , 354 P.3d 268 ] (Blackburn), we addressed the meaning of provisions in the statutory scheme for extending the commitment of a mentally disordered offender (MDO) that require the trial court to “advise the person of his or her right to be represented by an attorney and of the right to a jury trial” and to hold a jury trial “unless waived by both the person and the district attorney.” (Pen. Code, § 2972, subd. (a).) We held that the trial court *1163 must personally advise the MDO defendant of his or her right to a jury trial. In addition, before conducting a bench trial, the court must obtain the defendant’s personal waiver of his or her right to a jury trial unless the court finds substantial evidence — that is, evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt — that the defendant lacks the capacity to make a knowing and voluntary waiver, in which case defense counsel controls the waiver decision.

In this case, we address the meaning of nearly identical language in the statutory scheme for extending the involuntary commitment of a person originally committed after pleading not…

Concurring and Dissenting. — I concur in parts I and II of today’s opinion, but I respectfully dissent from the remainder of the opinion concerning the applicability of harmless error review for the same reasons explained in my opinion in the companion case of People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113 [ 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 458 , 354 P.3d 268 ] (Blackburn). We are bound by, and must follow, the harmless error approach set forth in article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution. Tran’s right to a jury trial concerning the extension of his involuntary commitment after pleading not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) is based on a state statute, not on any independent state or federal constitutional ground, and the errors at issue here- — -the trial court’s failure to advise him of his statutory right to a jury trial and obtain a personal waiver of that right — are not the type of fundamental structural defects that invariably constitute a “miscarriage of justice” under article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, and are capable of being reviewed to determine whether the errors actually affected the outcome of the proceeding. Accordingly, as in Blackburn , I conclude…

Filed 8/17/15 (this opn. follows companion case, S211078, also filed 8/17/15)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, )

) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) S211329 ) v. ) ) Ct.App. 6 H036977

DAWN QUANG TRAN, )

) Santa Clara County Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. 205026 ____________________________________)

In the companion case of People v. Blackburn (Aug. 17, 2015, S211078) ___ Cal.4th ___ (Blackburn), we addressed the meaning of provisions in the statutory scheme for extending the commitment of a mentally disordered offender (MDO) that require the trial court to ―advise the person of his or her right to be represented by an attorney and of the right to a jury trial‖ and to hold a jury trial ―unless waived by both the person and the district attorney.‖ (Pen. Code, § 2972, subd. (a).) We held that the trial court must personally advise the MDO defendant of his or her right to a jury trial. In addition, before conducting a bench trial, the court must…