Bendovid

People v. Bendovid

Good Law
241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 640·30 Cal. App. 5th 585
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 20, 20182d Crim. No. B288633California3,392 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

*587 Mentally disordered offenders (MDO's) committed for treatment lose their freedom. Courts must ensure strict compliance *588 with statutory requirements to guarantee that commitments are not arbitrary and comport with due process.

Yosef Shavuii Bendovid appeals an order committing him for treatment as an MDO pursuant to Penal Code section 2962. 1 We conclude, among other things, that Bendovid did not receive 90 days of treatment for his disorder "within the year" prior to his "parole or release." ( § 2962, subd. (c).) We reverse.

FACTS

In 2015, Bendovid was convicted of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4) ) and sentenced to two years in state prison. In August 2017, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) classified Bendovid as an MDO. ( § 2962.)

On November 7, 2017, Bendovid challenged the BPH determination in court ( §§ 2962, 2966, subd. (b) ), and waived his right to a jury trial.

Meghan Brannick, a forensic psychologist at Atascadero State Hospital (ASH), testified Bendovid has a "delusional disorder," which qualifies as a severe mental *642 disorder. His disorder was an "aggravating factor" in his commitment offense of assault,…

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.