Bona

People v. Bona

Good Law
15 Cal. App. 5th 511·2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 804·223 Cal. Rptr. 3d 649·2017 WL 4160933
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 20, 20172d Crim. No. B277751California4,344 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Perren, J.

*514 As a condition of his parole, Thomas D. Bona was committed to the State Department of Hospitals for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) ( Pen. Code, 1 § 2962 ). The trial court ordered the commitment after it denied Bona's petition challenging the Board of Parole *515 Hearings' (BPH) determination that he met the MDO criteria. (§ 2966, subd. (b), hereinafter § 2966(b).) Bona appeals, contending that (1) the court abused its discretion in continuing the hearing on his petition beyond the 60-day period set forth in section 2966(b); and (2) his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to (a) seek writ review from the orders granting the continuances, and (b) raise a Sanchez 2 objection to case-specific hearsay expert testimony offered at the hearing.

We conclude that the 60-day timeline set forth in section 2966(b) is directory rather than mandatory and that Bona was not prejudiced by the continuance of his hearing a week beyond that timeline. We also reject Bona's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. His first claim is forfeited and in any event fails for lack of prejudice. Although Sanchez applies in MDO proceedings to the…

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.