People v. Blancett
15 Cal. App. 5th 1200
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Defendant Dakota Blancett pleaded guilty in 2014 to two counts of child molestation and was sentenced to three years in prison.
- In July 2016 the Board of Parole Hearings found Blancett an MDO and required him to accept Department of Mental Health treatment as a condition of parole; Blancett petitioned the trial court under Penal Code § 2966(b) to contest that determination.
- The court appointed counsel immediately before the hearing; counsel requested a bench trial and the court asked Blancett one perfunctory question—"are you okay with a judge deciding your case?"—to which Blancett replied yes.
- The court received expert testimony and written evaluations; one forensic examiner and two written evaluators concluded Blancett met MDO criteria while two written evaluators did not.
- The court found Blancett met MDO criteria beyond a reasonable doubt and committed him to involuntary treatment; Blancett appealed, arguing his waiver of a jury trial was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Blancett) | Defendant's Argument (People/Court below) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly accepted a waiver of the right to a jury trial in an initial MDO commitment hearing | Waiver was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary because Blancett received only a barebones colloquy, had appointed counsel moments before, and lacked evidence he discussed waiver with counsel | Court implicitly treated counsel's request as controlling and accepted the waiver after asking only if Blancett was "okay" with a court trial | Reversed: court must obtain a personal, knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver before a bench trial in MDO commitment proceedings unless substantial evidence shows the petitioner lacks capacity to waive; the record here fails that test |
| What advisals are required before accepting a waiver of jury trial in MDO proceedings | Court must personally advise petitioner of jury right and explain basic mechanics and consequences (per Blackburn and Sivongxxay guidance) | Minimal colloquy suffices | Court held the minimal colloquy was insufficient under the totality of circumstances; a more robust advisement is required |
| Whether error was harmless or requires reversal | Error was not harmless because record does not affirmatively show a legitimate waiver given petitioner’s unfamiliarity with MDO proceedings and absence of discussion with counsel | The People argued (implicitly) any error was harmless or that counsel’s waiver could suffice | Error constitutes miscarriage of justice requiring reversal, not mere remand |
| Applicability of Blackburn to initial commitment (vs. recommitment) | Blackburn’s rule applies equally to initial MDO commitment hearings under § 2966(b) | None presented to suggest different treatment | Blackburn’s personal-waiver requirement applies to initial commitments; trial courts must elicit a personal waiver absent evidence of incapacity |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Blackburn, 61 Cal.4th 1113 (Blackburn requires personal, knowing, voluntary waiver of jury right in MDO recommitment proceedings)
- People v. Sivongxxay, 3 Cal.5th 151 (waiver validity judged by totality of circumstances; recommends robust colloquy explaining jury mechanics)
- People v. Daniels, 3 Cal.5th 961 (trial court cannot passively accept a waiver; record must affirmatively demonstrate waiver was knowing and intelligent)