shall conduct hearing in California

2013If continued treatment is sought, the district attorney must file a petition in the superior court alleging that the individual suffers from a severe mental disorder that is not in remission, and that he or she poses a substantial risk of harm. (§ 2970.)” (Lopez, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1063 .) Section 2972, subdivision (a) provides, among other things, that when a petition is filed, the court “shall advise the person . . . of the right to a jury trial”; and “the trial shall be by jury unless waived by both the person and the district attorney.”2 2 Section 2972, subdivision (a) provides, “(a)

2013If continued treatment is sought, the district attorney must file a petition in the superior court alleging that the individual suffers from a severe mental disorder that is not in remission, and that he or she poses a substantial risk of harm. (§ 2970.)” (Lopez, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1063 .) Section 2972, subdivision (a) provides, among other things, that when a petition is filed, the court “shall advise the person . . . of the right to a jury trial”; and “the trial shall be by jury unless waived by both the person and the district attorney.”2 (§ 2972.) To 2 Section 2972, subdivision (a) pr

2026The trial shall be by jury unless waived by both the person and the prosecuting attorney.” (Id., at subd. (b)(4).) Analysis Our Supreme Court in People v. Tran (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1160 (Tran) addressed the same issue raised by appellant challenging the trial court’s failure to obtain a personal 4. waiver of the right to a jury trial from the NGI defendant on a petition to extend the commitment.

2017The court shall conduct a hearing on the petition within 60 calendar days after the petition is filed, unless either time is waived by the petitioner or his or her counsel, or good cause is shown[.]" In Stevens , our Supreme Court held that "proof of a qualifying conviction under the MDO Act is based on facts rather than on defendant's psychological condition, and thus does not call for a mental health expert's opinion testimony." ( Stevens , supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 336, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 762 , 362 P.3d 408 .) In light of this holding, the prosecution must now offer eyewitness testimony or othe

2017The court shall conduct a hearing on the petition within 60 calendar days after the petition is filed, unless either time is waived by the petitioner or his or her counsel, or good cause is shown[.]" In Stevens , our Supreme Court held that "proof of a qualifying conviction under the MDO Act is based on facts rather than on defendant's psychological condition, and thus does not call for a mental health expert's opinion testimony." ( Stevens , supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 336, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 762 , 362 P.3d 408 .) In light of this holding, the prosecution must now offer eyewitness testimony or othe

2017The court shall conduct a hearing on the petition within 60 calendar days after the petition is filed, unless either time is waived by the petitioner or his or her counsel, or good cause is shown[.]" In Stevens , our Supreme Court held that "proof of a qualifying conviction under the MDO Act is based on facts rather than on defendant's psychological condition, and thus does not call for a mental health expert's opinion testimony." ( Stevens , supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 336, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 762 , 362 P.3d 408 .) In light of this holding, the prosecution must now offer eyewitness testimony or othe

2017The court shall conduct a hearing on the petition within 60 calendar days after the petition is filed, unless either time is waived by the petitioner or his or her counsel, or good cause is shown[.]" In Stevens , our Supreme Court held that "proof of a qualifying conviction under the MDO Act is based on facts rather than on defendant's psychological condition, and thus does not call for a mental health expert's opinion testimony." ( Stevens , supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 336, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 762 , 362 P.3d 408 .) In light of this holding, the prosecution must now offer eyewitness testimony or othe

2015The defendant may additionally petition the court for a dismissal of charges at any time after completion of the prescribed course of drug treatment.” Section 1210, subdivision (c) defines “successful completion of treatment” to mean “that a defendant who has had drug treatment imposed as a condition of probation has completed the prescribed course of drug treatment . . . and, as a result, there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant will not abuse controlled substances in the future.” “Mere completion of the program is not enough; the court must also find the program was, for the i

2014(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570.) “If the petition presents any evidence that a hearing would promote the best interests of the child, the court must order the hearing.” (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 461 , italics in original.) We review a juvenile court’s ruling denying 2 Section 388, subdivision (a) provides: “Any . . . person having an interest in a child who is a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile cour

2014(In re B.D. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1228 ; In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806-807 (Zachary).) In deciding whether to hold a full hearing on a section 388 petition, the juvenile court may choose to summarily deny the petition without a hearing if the court finds that the “petition . . . fails to state a change of circumstances or new evidence that may require a change of order or termination of jurisdiction or, that the requested modification would promote the best interest of the child.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(d).) On the other hand, if the petition states a prima f

2013(Lopez, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1063 ; People v. Beeson (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1393, 1398-1399 ; § 2972, subds. (c), (e).) 3 Section 2972, subdivision (a) provides, ―(a) The court shall conduct a hearing on the petition under Section 2970 for continued treatment.

2013Citing People v. Otis (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1174 (Otis) and People v. Montoya (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 825, 829 (Montoya) as well as People v. Masterson (1994) 8 5 Section 2972, subdivision (a) provides, “(a) The court shall conduct a hearing on the petition under Section 2970 for continued treatment.

2007In Budwiser, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th 105 , the defendant alleged a due process violation after the trial court conducted a single hearing on two probation violation petitions.

1981(People v. Redinger, supra, 55 Cal. at p. 296 ; People v. Buffalo, supra, 49 Cal.App.3d at p. 839 .) Since this court’s determination in the instant case perforce affects-Wilfred Cooper, we have chosen not to dismiss his petition. 2 Jones does not join in the instant petition. 3 Transcripts of the in camera hearings were ordered sealed, became part of the record and have been reviewed by this court. 4 Subdivision (d) of section 1042 provides: “When, in any such criminal proceeding, a party demands disclosure of the identity of the informant on the ground the informant is a material witness on

1981(People v. Redinger, supra, 55 Cal. at p. 296 ; People v. Buffalo, supra, 49 Cal.App.3d at p. 839 .) Since this court’s determination in the instant case perforce affects-Wilfred Cooper, we have chosen not to dismiss his petition. 2 Jones does not join in the instant petition. 3 Transcripts of the in camera hearings were ordered sealed, became part of the record and have been reviewed by this court. 4 Subdivision (d) of section 1042 provides: “When, in any such criminal proceeding, a party demands disclosure of the identity of the informant on the ground the informant is a material witness on