228 Cal. App. 4th 989
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Gary Donnell Williams was criminally charged with several sex offenses and, in Aug. 2011, the trial court found him incompetent to stand trial due to a developmental disability and referred placement recommendations to the regional center (SCLARC) under Penal Code §1370.1.
- SCLARC ultimately recommended placement at Porterville Developmental Center (PDC); the trial court ordered commitment to Porterville in Jan. 2013.
- PDC later refused admission, sending a written notice invoking Welfare & Institutions Code §6510.5 that Williams "cannot be safely served" at Porterville; the trial court concluded it lacked authority to override that DDS refusal.
- No other placement was identified; the court ordered Williams to remain in Los Angeles County Jail with local regional-center-provided competency services—placement Williams challenged via habeas corpus.
- The Court of Appeal held (1) county jail placement did not comply with the §1370.1 placement options as applied here, (2) prolonged confinement without a finding that competency is likely in the foreseeable future violates due process, and (3) the trial court cannot force Porterville to accept Williams if DDS properly invoked §6510.5, but may compel DDS to provide alternative placement options (e.g., by an order to show cause).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether placement in county jail satisfies Penal Code §1370.1 placement options | Williams: Jail is not an authorized §1370.1 placement; confinement unlawful | DA/Sheriff: County jail may qualify as a "treatment facility" under §1369.1 and thus is permissible | Held: Jail is not a proper §1370.1 placement here (no regional-center approval); §1369.1 amendments apply to §1370 (mental disorder), not §1370.1 (developmental disability) |
| Whether prolonged confinement without finding of substantial likelihood of restoration violates due process | Williams: Continued detention without determination of likelihood to regain competence violates due process | Sheriff/DA: (argued prolonged detention could be justified pending placement) | Held: Due process bars indefinite confinement; court must determine within statutory timeframes whether there is a substantial likelihood of restoration and either continue treatment with periodic reports or release/initiate civil commitment per Jackson/In re Davis principles |
| Whether trial court can order Porterville to accept Williams despite DDS/Porterville written refusal under Welf. & Inst. Code §6510.5 | Williams: Court should order Porterville to accept him; trial court can supervise placement | DDS/Porterville: §6510.5 authorizes DDS to prohibit placement if individual cannot be safely served | Held: Court cannot force Porterville to accept a person if DDS has properly issued written notice under §6510.5; but court may compel DDS to fulfill its duty to provide an alternative placement (e.g., by order to show cause) |
| Appropriate remedy and timetable | Williams: Release or placement in lawful treatment immediately | DA: Continue jail treatment or place at state hospital (Patton) | Held: Writ granted with directions: within 45 days after finality trial court must order placement in a facility meeting §1370.1(a)(1)(B); within 120 days court must order release or civil-commitment alternatives unless court finds substantial likelihood of restoration |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) (indefinite commitment solely for incompetency violates due process; state must release or pursue civil commitment if no substantial probability of restoration)
- In re Davis, 8 Cal.3d 798 (1973) (adopts Jackson rule; courts must obtain hospital reports and limit incompetency commitments absent likelihood of restoration)
- People v. Superior Court (Lopez), 125 Cal.App.4th 1558 (2005) (construes nearly identical §1370 placement provision and limits application of the §290-triggered preference)
- Craft v. Superior Court, 140 Cal.App.4th 1533 (2006) (time in jail without treatment implicates due process and speedy-trial considerations)
- Miklosy v. Regents of Univ. of California, 44 Cal.4th 876 (2008) (court will not read statutory amendment into a parallel statute that the Legislature did not change)