Page 1
Court of Appeal:
‘Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity’ Judgment Can’t Be Modified Under Resentencing Law
Commitment to Hospital for Treatment Is Not a ‘Sentence,’ Does Not Constitute Incarceration, Fifth District Says
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A man who was acquitted of crimes by reason of insanity and was committed to a state hospital for treatment was not “sentenced,” rendering void on its face an order that he be “resentenced,” the Fifth District Court of Appeal has declared.
The decision, filed Thursday, reverses an order by Kern Superior Court Judge Gloria J. Cannon recalling the 2016 judgment in the case of Shawn Vincent Gray and modifying it by reducing the term of commitment from a maximum term of 19 years, 4 months—subject to being extended if it were determined that Gray had not regained his sanity—to a maximum of 13 years, four months. Cannon granted the petition for resentencing, pursuant to Penal Code §1172.75, based on the 2019 repeal of the two enhancements that had been alleged in the prosecution of Gray, with that legislation given retroactive effect by SB 483, enacted in 2021.
Gray was found not guilty of stalking and making criminal threats by reason of insanity (“NGI”) and was committed to the Department of Mental Health by then-Judge John S. Somers, now retired.
Snauffer’s Opinion
Justice Mark W. Snauffer authored the opinion.
“The 19 year four month maximum NGI commitment term was the sentence that could have been imposed had Gray been convicted of the offenses with which he was charged,” he wrote. “However, Gray was not convicted of anything; indeed, he was acquitted.”
The jurist pointed out that SB 483 declares the Legislature’s intent to apply the 2019 repeal of the enhancements “to all persons currently serving a term of incarceration in jail or prison for these repealed sentence enhancements.” The italicizing is Snauffer’s.
He also quoted three provisions of §1172.75, with emphasis added by him. One says that in resentencing, a judge must “apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.”
No Incarceration
Another portion of the statute provides:
“The court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the defendant’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.”
Snauffer said that “perhaps most importantly,” §1172.75 says that a judge may recall a resentence and change it only if the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or a county correctional administrator has identified the petitioner as a person who might be entitled to relief by virtue of now-abolished enhancements having been applied at the sentencing.
“Section 1172.75 therefore presupposes that the superior court is only authorized to recall the cases of previously convicted defendants and, when its other preconditions are met, it only gives the superior court jurisdiction to reconsider an otherwise final judgment of conviction,” he wrote.
It has been “repeated ad nauseum,” Snauffer remarked, that a person found not guilty by reason of insanity has not been convicted and therefore has not been sentenced.
The case is People v. Gray, 2024 S.O.S. 1248.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company