People v. B.People CA2/6, B311051

Defendant B.P., diagnosed with schizophrenia, committed attempted rape with a great-bodily-injury enhancement five days after release from prison; he pled in a bargain and received a six-year prison sentence.
The trial court conducted an MDO (Pen. Code § 2962 et seq.) commitment hearing and accepted a bench-trial waiver after a brief colloquy in which defense counsel said he had spoken to B.P. about jury rights, the court asked if B.P. understood, and B.P. answered “Yeah” and waived.
The Attorney General conceded the waiver was invalid for inadequate advisement and urged reversal; the majority rejected that concession.
The Court of Appeal applied a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis and emphasized three supporting facts: the court expressly advised of the right to a jury, counsel represented he discussed the right with B.P., and B.P. had an extensive criminal-history record including prior jury waivers.
The majority distinguished Blancett and Jones (where advisements/colloquies were minimal and defendants had little or no criminal-court experience), and relied on Sivongxxay and other precedent that counsel’s advice and a defendant’s experience can supply affirmative evidence of a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver.
A concurring/dissenting justice would have remanded for a fuller on-the-record inquiry because B.P.’s schizophrenia, prior finding of incompetence, and the terse Zoom colloquy raised doubt about his capacity to waive jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of B.P.’s jury-trial waiver in the MDO commitment hearing	Waiver invalid because court’s colloquy failed to adequately advise under Sivongxxay; concession to reverse	Waiver was knowing, intelligent, voluntary: court advised right, counsel discussed waiver with client, and client affirmed understanding	Waiver valid under totality of the circumstances; commitment order affirmed
Whether departure from Sivongxxay’s recommended colloquy mandates reversal	Sivongxxay’s guidance should have been followed; omission shows no affirmative evidence of an informed waiver	Sivongxxay is guidance, not a rigid ritual; courts may consider other circumstances such as counsel’s confirmation and defendant’s experience	Deviation from Sivongxxay does not automatically invalidate waiver; totality-of-circumstances controls
Effect of defendant’s schizophrenia and prior incompetency on capacity to waive jury	Mental disorder and prior incompetency create reasonable doubt about capacity; remand for fuller inquiry is appropriate	Mental illness does not per se preclude waiver; absence of evidence undermining capacity plus counsel’s representation and long criminal history support waiver	Mental illness alone insufficient to overturn waiver here; record supports capacity and waiver validity (dissent would remand)

People v. Sivongxxay, 3 Cal.5th 151 (Cal. 2017) (totality-of-circumstances test for jury-waiver validity and recommended colloquy guidance)
People v. Blackburn, 61 Cal.4th 1113 (Cal. 2015) (trial court must obtain a personal waiver from MDO defendant unless substantial evidence shows lack of capacity)
People v. Blancett, 15 Cal.App.5th 1200 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (bare colloquy inadequate; waiver not knowing and intelligent for inexperienced defendant)
People v. Jones, 26 Cal.App.5th 420 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (brief two-question inquiry insufficient to show defendant understood nature of jury right)
People v. Daniels, 3 Cal.5th 961 (Cal. 2017) (consideration of counsel’s role and record references to counsel–defendant discussions in waiver analysis)
People v. Burgener, 46 Cal.4th 231 (Cal. 2009) (appellate independent review of waiver validity under totality of circumstances)