Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Statute Benefitting Persons Found ‘NGI’ Is Constitutional
Third District Says It Is Not an Amendment of Proposition 36 Without a Two-Thirds Vote of Legislature
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Third District Court of Appeal yesterday upheld the constitutionality of a statute enacted in 2017 to extend the same sentence reductions to persons found not guilty by reason of insanity and institutionalized as were conferred by Proposition 36—the “Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012”—on convicts.
The statute—Penal Code §1170.127—does not amend legislation created by the voter-approved initiative and therefore did not need a “super-majority” two-thirds vote, Justice Andrea L. Hoch said in an opinion that was not certified for publication.
Proposition 36 was enacted on Nov. 6, 2012, and went into effect the following day. The Fifth District Court of Appeal on March 1, 2016, held that the measure does not inure to the benefit of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGI”) although maximum period of confinement in hospitals parallels the prison sentences they could have received.
The Legislature abrogated that decision—in People v. Dobson—by adopting AB 103, which went into effect on June 27, 2017.
Hospital Confinement
Yesterday’s opinion reverses an order by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette denying a petition for a commitment reduction sought by Troy A. Steward, who was tried for a battery on a correctional officer, found not guilty by reason of insanity, and placed in Atascadero State Hospital. AB 103, Martlette declared, is unconstitutional because it runs afoul of Proposition 36 without receiving a two-thirds vote of legislators.
Rejecting his reasoning, Hoch said:
“Assembly Bill 103 does not amend Proposition 36 to prohibit what Proposition 36 authorizes or authorize what it prohibits….While Proposition 36 addresses the length of prison sentences for criminal defendants, Assembly Bill 103 addresses the length of commitment terms for NGI committees….Indeed, Proposition 36 is silent about the treatment of NGI committees.”
Different Subject Area
She continued:
“The Legislature is permitted to enact legislation in such circumstances….This case ‘presents a classic example of legislation that addresses a subject related to, but distinct from, an area addressed by an initiative.’…Because Assembly Bill 103 did not amend Proposition 36, the superior court erred in holding that Assembly Bill 103 is unconstitutional.”
Steward was committed for a period of 25 years to life, although the commitment could be terminated upon establishment in court that his sanity had been restored.
In Dobson, Acting Presiding Justice Charles Poochigian declared that Proposition 36 does not apply to persons found not guilty by reason of insanity, explaining that it “applies exclusively to certain ‘persons presently serving an indeterminate term of imprisonment…’.” He noted that the petitioner “is not presently serving any term of imprisonment whatsoever; he has been committed to a state hospital as an NGI committee” and “falls outside the scope” of Proposition 36’s “plain language.”
Yesterday’s decision came on People v. Steward, C091715.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company