78 Cal.App.5th 1127
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- David Myers was an MDO whose one-year commitment was set to expire October 15, 2020; the People filed a petition to extend the commitment before that date.
- Because the extension trial could not begin at least 30 days before release, the superior court released Myers on October 16, 2020 pursuant to People v. Cobb. She was not in SDSH custody or on outpatient status while released.
- The extension trial began August 23, 2021; on August 31, 2021 the court found Myers met MDO criteria and issued an order recommitting her for one year dating from October 15, 2020 to October 15, 2021.
- The People moved to modify the recommitment dates to August 31, 2021–August 31, 2022, arguing Cobb release should not be credited because the statute’s purpose is to provide a full year of custodial treatment; the court granted that motion on October 14, 2021.
- Myers petitioned for writ relief. The Court of Appeal agreed with Myers that Penal Code §2972(c)’s plain language controls and directed the superior court to reinstate the August 31, 2021 order that set the one-year term as commencing October 15, 2020.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Myers) | Defendant's Argument (People/AG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an MDO’s one-year recommitment under Penal Code §2972(c) begins on the date the prior commitment terminated (even if the MDO was released under Cobb pending trial) | §2972(c) unambiguously requires the new one‑year term to run from the prior commitment’s termination date (Oct 15, 2020) | The start date should be the date custody resumes after Cobb release (Aug 31, 2021) so the recommitment yields a full year of custodial treatment; Cobb release days should not be credited | Court held for Myers: plain text of §2972(c) controls; time out of custody pursuant to Cobb (not outpatient) is credited toward the one‑year term, so the term commenced Oct 15, 2020 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cobb, 48 Cal.4th 243 (2010) (due process bars continued confinement when extension trial does not begin before scheduled release; court retains jurisdiction to try petition)
- People v. Allen, 42 Cal.4th 91 (2007) (petition to extend must be filed before termination of commitment or MDO is no longer subject to MDO Act)
- People v. Morris, 126 Cal.App.4th 527 (2005) (distinguishing outpatient‑status regimes and applicability of different statutory provisions)
- People v. Marchman, 145 Cal.App.4th 79 (2006) (requirements for district attorney to rely on written evaluation before recommitment)
- People v. Licas, 41 Cal.4th 362 (2007) (legislature presumed aware of judicial decisions when amending statutes)
- People v. Foster, 7 Cal.5th 1202 (2019) (describing scope and purpose of MDO Act)
- People v. Harrison, 57 Cal.4th 1211 (2013) (overview of MDO Act’s dual purpose of public protection and treatment)