Kendrid

People v. Kendrid

Good Law
140 Cal. Rptr. 3d 888·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 568·205 Cal. App. 4th 1360·2012 WL 1677937
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 15, 2012No. A132987California3,660 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Jones, J.

Appellant Forrest Kendrid appeals from the trial court’s order extending his commitment pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.5, subdivision (b), which governs the procedures for extending the commitment of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI). 1 Relying on a series of cases interpreting section 2970—part of the Mentally Disordered Offender Act—appellant contends the prosecutor “lacked statutory authority” to file the petition to extend his commitment because the hospital medical director did not recommend an extension. Appellant also claims substantial evidence does not support the court’s determination that he represented a “substantial danger of physical harm to others.” (§ 1026.5, subd. (b)(1).)

*1363 We affirm. We conclude the medical director’s recommendation against extending appellant’s commitment did not preclude the district attorney from filing a petition under section 1026.5, subdivision (b). We also conclude substantial evidence supports the court’s order extending appellant’s commitment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1996, appellant spit in the face of a prison correctional officer and was charged with felony battery by a state…

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.