People v. J.B. CA4/1

── People v. J.B. CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/8/26 P. v. J.B. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D087147 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FELJS18000118) J.B., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Kawika Smith, Judge. Affirmed. Steven S. Lubliner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Collette C. Cavalier, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. J.B. suffers from severe mental illness. In 2014, following a successful not guilty by reason of insanity defense (NGI), the trial court sent J.B. to the Department of State Hospitals at Patton (Patton). Based on the how the law was interpreted at the time, the People brought timely recommitment petitions every two years to keep J.B. in treatment due to his continued mental illness and danger to the public. J.B. is still at Patton. He appeals his continued placement there, arguing that under a new interpretation of the law, all the People’s petitions to keep J.B. in Patton, dating back to 2014, have been untimely, requiring J.B.’s immediate release from the state hospital system. J.B. asserts four arguments to support this position. First, he contends the court erred in denying him Penal Code1 section 4019 conduct credits for his precommitment jail time, his postcommitment jail time before being transferred to Patton, and, more recently, the time he spent in jail after being removed from the conditional release program (CONREP).2 This means the original recommitment petition, as well as all subsequent extensions, were filed too late, the court lacked jurisdiction to recommit him, and he must be released immediately. Second, he argues the recommitment order must be reversed because the prosecution failed to prove he had been found NGI in a felony case. Third, he asserts the recommitment order was not supported by substantial evidence of his future dangerousness. He also contends he established the medication defense as a matter of law. Finally, J.B. maintains the trial court violated his constitutional and statutory rights to represent himself during the recommitment proceedings. As we will discuss, although we agree with People v. Superior Court (Frezier) (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 652, which entitled NGI acquittees like J.B. 1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 See Welfare and Institutions Code section 4360, subdivision (a). CONREP’s purpose is to “provide mental health treatment and supervision in the community” for person judicially committed to the state’s mental health hospital system. (Ibid.) 2 to precommitment conduct credits, we conclude the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider J.B.’s belated claim to conduct credits at his third recommitment trial. Furthermore, we conclude that once committed to the state hospital system (Patton and CONREP), J.B. could not receive section 4019 conduct credits. This includes for the period when J.B. was housed in jail between CONREP and Patton assignments. We also are unpersuaded by J.B.’s remaining claims. We