People v. Bona, 15 Cal. App. 5th 511

Bona was convicted of elder abuse and, after a BPH finding that he met MDO criteria, was committed to treatment as a condition of parole under Penal Code §2962.
Bona filed a §2966(b) petition for a superior court hearing; the trial court held an evidentiary hearing with retained psychologist Meghan Brannick testifying for the People.
Brannick interviewed Bona, reviewed records, and spoke to treating clinicians; she diagnosed schizophrenia, opined it was not in remission without treatment, and that Bona presented a substantial danger when symptomatic.
The superior court granted two short continuances (one day beyond the 60-day statutory target, then six additional days) over Bona’s objections so the People could present Sergeant Harris’s eyewitness testimony about the offense facts (following People v. Stevens).
Bona appealed, arguing (1) the court abused its discretion by extending the §2966(b) 60-day hearing period and counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (2a) not seeking writ review of the continuances and (2b) not objecting under People v. Sanchez to case‑specific hearsay in the expert’s testimony.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the MDO commitment: held the §2966(b) 60-day timeframe is directory (not mandatory), Bona failed to show prejudice from the brief delay, and defense counsel’s omissions did not establish deficient performance or prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §2966(b)’s 60‑day hearing requirement is mandatory and continuances were an abuse	Bona: continuances violated the statute and were an abuse; he was entitled to timely hearing	People: statute contains no penalty for noncompliance; continuances were for good cause (to present eyewitness under Stevens)	The 60‑day timeline is directory, not mandatory; brief delay did not amount to denial of due process absent actual prejudice; affirmed
Whether counsel was ineffective for not seeking pretrial writ relief from continuances	Bona: counsel should have sought writ; if granted, prejudice inquiry would be different	People: claim is forfeited on appeal; even on merits, must show prejudice from delay and none shown	Forfeited; fails on merits because defendant did not show actual prejudice from the short delay
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object under Sanchez to case‑specific hearsay in expert testimony	Bona: Sanchez rendered much of Brannick’s case‑specific reliance inadmissible; counsel had no tactical reason not to object	People: counsel could have tactical reasons (used evidence to challenge elements, exploited statements on cross, avoided giving the jury a more detailed account), and many statements were based on the expert’s observations or were cumulative	No deficient performance shown on record; defendant also failed to show it was reasonably probable outcomes would differ had objections been made

People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (clarifies when expert testimony relying on case‑specific out‑of‑court statements constitutes hearsay)
People v. Stevens, 62 Cal.4th 325 (qualification of conviction under MDO Act requires proof of facts of the offense, not expert opinion)
People v. Martinez, 22 Cal.4th 750 (statutory speedy‑trial analysis: posttrial appellate review requires a showing of prejudice)
People v. Hung Thanh Mai, 57 Cal.4th 986 (standards for ineffective‑assistance claims on direct appeal)
People v. Tatum, 161 Cal.App.4th 41 (statutory time limits in MDO proceedings are generally directory rather than jurisdictional)
People v. Chuong D., 135 Cal.App.4th 1303 (posttrial speedy‑trial challenge requires demonstration of prejudice)