Filed 5/28/21 P. v. Montoya CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, H047487 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. SS042417A) v. EVERARDO MONTOYA, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Everardo Montoya appeals from the trial court’s order extending his commitment under Penal Code section 1026.5, subdivision (b).1 Defendant had previously been found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) and was committed to the Department of State Hospitals. He was subsequently placed on outpatient status through the South Bay Conditional Release Program (CONREP). After the People sought an extension of defendant’s commitment, a jury found that, “by reason of a mental disease, defect, or disorder,” defendant continued to “represent[] a substantial danger of physical harm to others.” (§ 1026.5, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court ordered defendant’s commitment extended for another two years. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings that he represented a substantial danger of physical harm to others and that he had a serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior; (2) the jury instruction on extensions of NGI commitments (CALCRIM 1 Unspecified section references are to the Penal Code. No. 3453) misstated the burden of proof; and (3) the trial court should have granted his motion for a mistrial when a witness volunteered testimony that violated an in limine ruling. We find substantial evidence supports the jury’s findings. We reject defendant’s argument that CALCRIM No. 3453 misstates the burden of proof. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of a mistrial. We will therefore affirm the order extending defendant’s commitment. I. BACKGROUND A. Procedural History In 2004, defendant was charged with two counts of second degree robbery (§ 211) and one count of battery (§ 242). At some point, two charges of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (c)) were added. After a court trial in 2005, defendant was found guilty of the grand theft charges but NGI of the robbery and battery charges. In February 2005, defendant was committed to the Department of State Hospitals with his maximum term of confinement set at three years eight months. In 2008, defendant’s commitment was extended to May 2010. In 2009, defendant was placed on outpatient status through CONREP. Defendant thereafter agreed to yearly extensions of his outpatient commitment. In July 2019, the People filed a petition to extend defendant’s outpatient commitment. A jury trial commenced in September 2019, and resulted in a finding that the allegations of the petition were true. The trial court ordered defendant’s outpatient commitment extended for two more years. B. Testimony of Defendant’s Psychiatrist Dr. Nagaraj Uddhandi, a psychiatrist, worked as a consultant with …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals