People v. McFaddin CA1/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 28, 2022A165843California1,799 words

Opinion

Opinion

Petrou, J.

DISCUSSION

The Mentally Disordered Offenders Act (§ 2960 et seq.) provides that “[a]s a condition of parole, a prisoner may be designated and civilly committed as an MDO for involuntary treatment of a ‘severe mental disorder’ if certain conditions are met.” (People v. Allen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 91, 99, fn. omitted (Allen); see §§ 2962, subds. (a)–(f), 2966; see People v. Dunley (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1442, fns. omitted (Dunley).) The commitment term is one year and, prior to the expiration of each commitment period, the district attorney may file an extension petition for an additional one-year term. (Allen, supra, at p. 99; §§ 2970, 2972, subds. (a), (b), (c).) McFaddin challenges the now-expired order of commitment on the following grounds: (1) the trial court erroneously allowed into evidence inadmissible hearsay evidence in violation of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez), and to the extent the issue is not adequately preserved, that failure constituted ineffective assistance of defense counsel; (2) there was no substantial evidence to support the determination that he was an MDO; (3) the trial court improperly intervened to support the prosecutor’s case by…

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.