Legal Opinion
In re Taitano
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
Decided July 5, 2017No. A147412PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNeedham, J.
*239Jordan E. Taitano was determined by the trial court to be incompetent to stand trial. His commitment facility subsequently found there was no substantial likelihood he would be restored to mental competence in the foreseeable future, he completed the three-year maximum commitment period, and he was determined not to be subject to a conservatorship as gravely disabled. The trial court granted Taitano a writ of habeas corpus and released him, concluding that Penal Code section 1368 did not authorize a new competency hearing.
*5291 The People appeal, urging that such a hearing is authorized under…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Jackson v. IndianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Sell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Santisas v. GoodinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Hughes v. Board of Architectural ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Wilcox v. BirtwhistleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- People v. NelsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- K.R. v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2023
- K.R. v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2023
- Kenneth Martin v. RainsDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2020
- McKneely v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.