relied on proper factors in California

2015(See e.g., People v. McDonough (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1472, 1489-1494 (McDonough) [“In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, we look to whether the court relied on proper factors and whether those factors are supported by the record.”]; People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1434 [“The trial court’s ruling at this stage [the first-step determination under section 1026.2] is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”].) Our search has revealed no published cases addressing the standard of review applicable to a trial court’s determination of the second-step determination.

2015“We review the court’s decision denying outpatient status for an abuse of discretion. [Citation.] In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, we look to whether the court relied on proper factors and whether those factors are supported by the record. [Citation.] In other words, we ‘consider whether the record demonstrates reasons for the trial court’s disregard of the opinion of the treating doctors and other specialists who [all] testified that defendant was no longer dangerous.’ [Citation.]” (People v. McDonough (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1472, 1489 (McDonough).) The McDonough

2015(See Williams, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d at p. 1479 [reversing refusal to give jury instruction that a finding of restoration is warranted if the defendant is not a danger to others while in a medicated condition and will continue to take medication in an unsupervised environment].) The uncontradicted evidence was that Turner has continued to take her medication during her entire commitment, including her entire period while under the supervision of CONREP.

2015(See e.g., People v. McDonough (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1472, 1489-1494 (McDonough) [“In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, we look to whether the court relied on proper factors and whether those factors are supported by the record.”]; People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1434 [“The trial court’s ruling at this stage [the first-step determination under section 1026.2] is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”].) Our search has revealed no published cases addressing the standard of review applicable to a trial court’s determination of the second-step determination.

2011(People v. Henderson (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1263, 1269 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 141 ] [dangerousness is a proper factor].) In other words, we “consider whether the record demonstrates reasons for the trial court’s disregard of the opinion of the treating doctors and other specialists who [all] testified that defendant was no longer dangerous.” (People v. Sword, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 626.) Appellant was committed to the state hospital because she had been found not guilty by reason of insanity. (§ 1026, subd. (a).) An insanity acquittee committed to a state hospital may be released from the hospita

2011(People v. Henderson (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1263, 1269 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 141 ] [dangerousness is a proper factor].) In other words, we “consider whether the record demonstrates reasons for the trial court’s disregard of the opinion of the treating doctors and other specialists who [all] testified that defendant was no longer dangerous.” (People v. Sword, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 626.) Appellant was committed to the state hospital because she had been found not guilty by reason of insanity. (§ 1026, subd. (a).) An insanity acquittee committed to a state hospital may be released from the hospita

2011(People v. Henderson (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1263, 1269 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 141 ] [dangerousness is a proper factor].) In other words, we “consider whether the record demonstrates reasons for the trial court’s disregard of the opinion of the treating doctors and other specialists who [all] testified that defendant was no longer dangerous.” (People v. Sword, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 626.) Appellant was committed to the state hospital because she had been found not guilty by reason of insanity. (§ 1026, subd. (a).) An insanity acquittee committed to a state hospital may be released from the hospita

1992(People v. Golliver (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1616 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 191 ].) While we agree that the trial court failed to explicitly tie the reasons given for the denial of probation, and the subsequent selection of the *615 aggravated term with respect to count 6, to its choices for counts 1 and 7, we think it apparent that the court intended to use the specified factors to support all three aggravated terms, and a remand for the purpose of formalizing this would be unnecessary if the court relied on proper factors with respect to count 6.

1992(People v. Golliver (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1616 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 191 ].) While we agree that the trial court failed to explicitly tie the reasons given for the denial of probation, and the subsequent selection of the *615 aggravated term with respect to count 6, to its choices for counts 1 and 7, we think it apparent that the court intended to use the specified factors to support all three aggravated terms, and a remand for the purpose of formalizing this would be unnecessary if the court relied on proper factors with respect to count 6.