People v. Brewer
185 Cal. Rptr. 3d 104
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Sacramento County Public Defender filed habeas petitions (2005) challenging prolonged jail detention of criminal defendants found incompetent to stand trial (1ST) who were ordered committed to Napa State Hospital (NSH).
- Trial court issued the 2006 Osburn injunction ordering the Sheriff to deliver §1370 committees to NSH within seven days of commitment (later amended to allow delay until the §1370 packet was ready); no appeal was taken then.
- In 2013 the Public Defender sought contempt proceedings alleging continued delays; the Department of State Hospitals moved to set aside the Osburn Order, citing increased referrals, static bed capacity, and administrative burdens.
- The trial court denied the motion to set aside but modified the deadline from seven to 14 days; the Department appealed that denial/modification.
- While appeal was pending, the Legislature enacted AB 1468 (2014), altering §1370 procedures (Department now makes placement decisions and intake packets must be provided prior to admission), prompting the appellate court to remand for reconsideration and to dissolve the Osburn injunction pending further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court exceeded jurisdiction/separation of powers by imposing a transfer deadline | Osburn: court can set a deadline to effectuate §1370’s 90-day reporting requirement and ensure meaningful treatment | Dept: deadline is legislative, intrudes on Department’s statutory duties and discretion | Court: setting a deadline enforces §1370 and does not violate separation of powers; deadline is permissible exercise of judicial power |
| Whether the Osburn Order was an improper local rule or exceeded habeas scope | Osburn/Public Defender: habeas may grant prospective/class relief to remedy recurring violations | Dept: order functioned as a local rule without required rulemaking procedures | Court: Osburn is an injunction (habeas-based remedial order), not a local rule; habeas can provide broad relief |
| Whether Mille or other law requires dissolution of the injunction | Dept: Mille and later developments undermine a fixed deadline and require individualized determinations | Public Defender: Mille mandates timely transfer; fixed short deadline is consistent with ensuring a meaningful 90-day report | Court: Mille requires transfer within a reasonable time tied to the 90-day reporting requirement; Mille does not categorically forbid a court-imposed deadline and does not on its own undo the injunction |
| Whether AB 1468’s statutory changes require vacatur/remand | Dept: AB 1468 vests placement discretion with Department and requires pre-admission packets, altering the legal framework that supported Osburn | Public Defender: injunction can be adjusted to conform to new statutory scheme | Court: AB 1468 materially changed the law; trial court’s 2013 attempt to modify during appeal was void; reversed and remanded for reconsideration with evidentiary hearing; injunction dissolved pending reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (U.S. 1972) (defendant committed solely for incompetence cannot be confined longer than reasonable time necessary to determine probability of restoration)
- In re Davis, 8 Cal.3d 798 (Cal. 1973) (California adopts Jackson rule and requires prompt hospital examination and reporting)
- Oregon Advocacy Ctr. v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2003) (federal injunction ordering transfer to state hospital within seven days under Oregon statutory scheme)
- In re Mille, 182 Cal.App.4th 635 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (transfer must occur within a reasonable time so the 90-day hospital progress report is meaningful)