People v. Kendrid
140 Cal. Rptr. 3d 888
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant Forrest Kendrid was found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to Atascadero State Hospital with prior extensions under Penal Code 1026.5(b).
- He was transferred to the Department of Corrections in 2004 due to dangerousness, and his commitment was extended in 2007 and 2009 under 1026.5(b).
- By September 2010 he was back at the hospital with an estimated commitment expiry in June 2011.
- In January 2011 Solano County DA filed a petition to extend under 1026.5(b), noting the hospital director requested the petition not be filed but that appellant posed substantial danger.
- The petition attached a October 27, 2010 letter from Dr. Cahill stating the treatment team recommended against extension, while noting the DA could seek extension without the director’s recommendation.
- Dr. David Fennell’s October 2010 report likewise recommended against extension, yet he acknowledged appellant presented a substantial danger of physical harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to file without director’s extension recommendation | Kendrid argues the director’s recommendation is prerequisite. | Kendrid contends DA lacks authority if director opposes extension. | DA may file regardless of director’s recommendation. |
| Legal standard for extending under 1026.5(b)(1) | The court must rely on expert consensus showing substantial danger. | The defendant argues error in reliance on conflicting medical opinions. | Substantial evidence supports finding of substantial danger. |
| Role of medical director’s opinions in 1026.5(b)(2) | Medical director’s opinion is not required to authorize filing if not in favor. | Appellant emphasizes director’s negative recommendation as controlling. | Director’s opinion is advisory; not a prerequisite to filing. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to extend commitment | Evidence shows serious difficulty controlling dangerous behavior. | Fennell concluded less than serious difficulty, suggesting no sustainment. | Substantial evidence supports extension under 1026.5(b)(1). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Galindo, 142 Cal.App.4th 531 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (standard for substantial danger determination under 1026.5)
- People v. Zapisek, 147 Cal.App.4th 1151 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (discussion of evidence standard for 1026.5(b)(1))
- People v. Williams, 31 Cal.4th 757 (Cal. 2003) (requires not absolute but serious impairment in control)
- Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2002) (overlap between harm perception and control of behavior)
- Marchman, 145 Cal.App.4th 79 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (statutory language interpretation for 1026.5-like procedures)
- Garcia, 127 Cal.App.4th 558 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (DA authority to initiate recommitment under 2970 tied to director’s written remission evaluation)
- Cuccia, 153 Cal.App.4th 347 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (alignment with Garcia on 2970 procedures)
- People v. Hernandez, 201 Cal.App.4th 483 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (recognizes non-prerequisite recommendation for 2970-like proceedings)