In 1995, Mr. Endsley shot and killed his dad. He was tried and found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI). Now Endsley resides at a state mental hospital.
In May of 2015, Endsley filed a petition for conditional release under PC 1026.2. The trial court denied the petition without a hearing. Ensley appealed.
The Fourth District reverses and remands with directions for the trial court to request Endsley's doctor to prepare a written recommendation regarding the petition and to hold a hearing on whether Endsley is entitled to conditional release.
The issue is one of statutory construction. Upon receiving a petition for conditional release, PC 1026.2(e) states the trial court "shall hold a hearing". But 1026.2(l) prohibits the court from taking any action without first obtaining the written recommendation of the person in charge of the defendant's treatment. The State argues that the trial court was correct to deny the petition sans hearing because Endsley's petition was deficient in that it did not contain the required written recommendation. Endsley replies that it is the court's duty to obtain the recommendation, not his, and that the court erred by not ordering the recommendation and, upon receipt, conducting the required hearing.
The panel agrees with Endsley. Its reasoning incorporates an analogy to a Welfare & Institutions Code sections and reasons of judicial efficiency. Strangely though it omits the obvious argument, which is textual. The court is prohibited from taking action "without first obtaining the written recommendation . . . ." According to Random House, "obtain" means "to come into possession of; get, acquire, or procure, as through an effort or by a request". A brief textual approach appears to end the discussion as to whom the burden is laid to get the report.
At any rate, the trial court is instructed to request the necessary report and then hold a hearing on whether Endsley is entitled to conditional release.
No comments:
Post a Comment