The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro ,j.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Following a bench trial, the trial court extended the mental health commitment of defendant Anthony Dawayne Lee Turner. (Pen. Code, § 1026.5, subd. (b)(1); undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) On appeal, defendant contends (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that defendant has serious difficulty in controlling his dangerous or violent behavior, (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for self-representation, and (3) the trial court erred in failing to afford him a jury trial. The People agree that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for self-representation.
We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the required finding that defendant has serious difficulty in controlling his dangerous or violent behavior. But we agree with the parties that the trial court erred in summarily denying defendant's motion for self-representation. We will conditionally reverse the order extending his commitment and remand this case for consideration of defendant's motion for self-representation.
Regarding defendant's contention that the trial court erred in failing to afford him a jury trial, we conclude that counsel impliedly waived jury trial on behalf of defendant. Nonetheless, on remand, if defendant is allowed to represent himself, trial shall be by jury unless waived by defendant and the prosecutor.
In March 1994, defendant "forced his way into a neighbor's home, refusing to leave despite the homeowner's plea." In March 1996, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity of first degree burglary. Defendant was committed to the Department of Mental Health.
I Defendant first contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he has serious difficulty in controlling his dangerous or violent behavior. We disagree.
To extend a commitment under section 1026.5, there must be proof, among other things, that the "person under commitment has serious difficulty in controlling dangerous behavior." (People v. Galindo (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 531, 533, 536-537 [applying the holding in In re Howard N. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 117]; People v. Zapisek (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1159-1165 [same]; People v. Bowers (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 870, 878 (Bowers) [same].)
In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a section 1026.5 extension, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the extension order to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the requirements of section 1026.5, subdivision (b)(1) beyond a reasonable doubt. (Bowers, supra, 145 Cal.App.4th at pp. 878-879.)
Defendant focuses on only one hospital report dated November 2009 and argues there is scant evidence that he does not control his behavior. But a review of the entire record establishes that there is substantial evidence that defendant has ...