100 Cal.App.5th 642
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- Oscar Deran Barner was found not guilty by reason of insanity following a violent assault on his neighbor, and was classified as a “three-strike” offender.
- The trial court committed Barner to the State Department of State Hospitals, setting his maximum commitment term at 25 years to life, based on the Three Strikes law.
- Barner challenged the use of the Three Strikes law to determine his commitment length, arguing statutory and constitutional grounds.
- The court held that commitment after an insanity finding is civil in nature, but requires calculation of the “longest term of imprisonment” as if the defendant had been convicted and sentenced, per Penal Code § 1026.5.
- Barner further claimed that a life-top term violated due process and equal protection because he is treated differently than other insanity acquittees with determinate terms.
- The judgment was modified to reflect a maximum term of life and an amended statement explaining calculation of the term was ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Barner's Argument | People’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the commitment calculation a sentencing or not? | Trial court erred by conducting a sentencing hearing rather than only a max term calculation. | Despite some "sentencing" language, the process was a civil commitment calculation as required. | Court agreed with People: was a max term calculation, not a sentence. |
| Application of the Three Strikes law to commitment | Three Strikes law should not apply to civil commitment; only upper base term should be used. | Three Strikes law applies for calculating the “longest term” per statute. | Three Strikes law applies; life is correct maximum term. |
| Constitutionality of life-top commitment term | Life-top terms violate due process & equal protection compared to determinate terms. | Commitment is for treatment & public safety, with procedural safeguards. | No constitutional violation; differences are rational. |
| Multiple convictions for related assault/battery | Cannot have both convictions; one is a lesser included offense of the other. | Statutes have different elements; both convictions can stand. | Both convictions allowed; not lesser included as charged. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Moye, 22 Cal.3d 457 (Cal. 1978) (commitment following not guilty by reason of insanity is civil and for treatment/protection, not punishment)
- Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1983) (upholding indefinite commitment of insanity acquittee subject to periodic review)
- People v. Lara, 48 Cal.4th 216 (Cal. 2010) (insanity acquittee is no longer a criminal defendant but subject to civil commitment)
- People v. Vidana, 1 Cal.5th 632 (Cal. 2016) (multiple convictions allowed if offenses have separate elements and are not lesser-included)
- People v. Beck, 47 Cal.App.4th 1676 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (insanity acquittal shows both mental illness and dangerousness for commitment)
- People v. Bertoldo, 77 Cal.App.3d 627 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) (assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury and felony battery have different elements)