People v. Ayala CA4/1

Filed 9/8/26 P. v. Ayala 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D087899

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR98576) v.

JOEL E. AYALA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Aaron H. Katz, Judge. Affirmed.

Joel E. Ayala, in pro. per., and Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Joel E. Ayala appeals from an order denying his application for restoration of sanity and conditional release under Penal Code section 1026.2 (section 1026.2). Appellate counsel filed a brief identifying no arguable issues but requesting that this court undertake independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Ayala subsequently filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf. For the reasons set out below, we affirm the court’s order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Ayala was committed to Patton State Hospital by way of an order filed September 7, 1989. A court found him not guilty by reason of insanity as to the offense of murder (Pen. Code, § 187(a)) pursuant to a plea arrangement. The charge arose from an incident in which Ayala shot and killed his stepbrother.

Ayala has been committed to Patton State Hospital since 1989. In November 2025, Ayala filed a petition for transfer to an outpatient treatment program pursuant to section 1026.2, asserting that he has been restored to sanity and is therefore no longer a danger to the health and safety of others.

The court held an evidentiary hearing on Ayala’s petition on February 24, 2026. The sole witness to testify was Ayala.

On direct examination, Ayala generally testified that he had not been involved in incidents requiring a special incident report (SIR), which is a reporting system pursuant to which staff place patients into a “seclusion” or “restraint” room. He acknowledged that he had been placed in a “side room” at least two times recently, but claimed it was “for no reason.”

Ayala also described how his current doctor has prescribed him medications that help him with his behavior and attitude, and he feels good on the medication and is not experiencing side effects. Ayala is currently taking Trazodone, Haldol, Lithium, and Zyprexa, as well as blood pressure medication, and he has been on them for approximately two years.

Ayala explained his diagnoses as he understands them. He believes that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which then turned into paranoid schizophrenia. Ayala admitted that in the past he suffered from visual and audio hallucinations, but he denied recently or presently having hallucinations. He also asserted he has not felt paranoid during recent years.

Ayala testified he would continue to take his medication if he were placed in a conditional release program (CONREP) or fully released into the community. He indicated he would take his medication “just so [he] can get [SSI] benefits.”

On cross-examination, Ayala admitted that in 1997, during his commitment, he had used an electrical cord to try to choke another patient. In 2000, Ayala assaulted another patient in the hospital because he believed that individual was looking at him and Ayala believed the man was homosexual. And in 2016, Ayala tried to hit another patient who he claimed had tried to strike him and had been antagonizing him.

Ayala was also asked about being moved to a different unit in 2018 because he complained other patients were raping him. Ayala’s responses were unintelligible. For example, among other things, Ayala said, “And I see out of my left eye retina, he put sperm in my left eye retina. And that’s why I see sometimes visions in my left eye. [¶] I think they both put some kind of voodoism that they’re trying to use.”

At the conclusion of Ayala’s testimony, the People moved for judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8, on the ground that Ayala had not met his burden to demonstrate restoration of sanity sufficient to permit him to be safely treated on an outpatient basis. The People noted that he had not provided any expert testimony or testimony from his treating providers. In addition, the People argued that Ayala’s own testimony raised “red flags” about possible hallucinations or paranoid thinking. The concern about this is that the methods staff and Patton State Hospital have to help Ayala during certain outbursts or internal struggles would not be available in an outpatient setting.

The court conceded that Ayala has “made progress” over the years. The court also acknowledged that Ayala’s violent incidents “are not numerous,” but yet some “have occurred.” The court explained, however, that the testimony Ayala provided during cross-examination was concerning, in that it demonstrated Ayala “continues to suffer from some psychotic symptomology, particularly when it comes to paranoid delusions.” Ultimately, the court was not satisfied that Ayala had met his burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that his sanity had been restored such that he could be released into the community in a community-based program. The court denied Ayala’s request to be found restored to sanity and released to a conditional release program.

DISCUSSION

Ayala’s counsel has submitted a brief pursuant to Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.) and People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422 (Dobson). Consistent with these authorities, counsel’s brief sets out no arguable appellate issues, but describes the record and trial evidence and provides the relevant law.

On June 24, 2026, we issued an order granting Ayala 30 days to file a supplemental brief, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Ben C. and Dobson. On June 25, Ayala’s attorney filed with the court a handwritten letter from Ayala constituting his supplemental brief. In it, Ayala states, among other things, that he suffered an “organic Brain injury” when he was two years eight months old. The letter also includes Ayala’s statements about one of the violent incidents in which he took part during his commitment, and he contends that many of his behaviors can be traced to family members dying, missing loved ones, and having emotional stress.1

Ayala’s supplemental brief does not expressly set forth any specific argument that there was reversible error in the court’s order denying him conditional release. However, by referring to and/or restating some of the testimony provided at trial, Ayala’s brief may be viewed as implicitly arguing that the evidence compels a finding in his favor as a matter of law on the question whether he met his burden of proof at the proceeding. “The substantial evidence standard of review takes on a unique formulation where, as here, ‘the trier of fact has expressly or implicitly concluded that the party with the burden of proof did not carry the burden and that party appeals.’ ” (In re S.G. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 654, 671.) In this context, “ ‘ “ ‘the question for a reviewing court becomes whether the evidence compels a finding in favor of the appellant as a matter of law. [Citations.] Specifically, the question becomes whether the appellant's evidence was (1) “uncontradicted and unimpeached” and (2) “of such a character and weight as to leave no room for a judicial determination that it was insufficient to support a finding.” ’ ” ’ ” (Garcia v. KND Development 52, LLC (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 736, 744–745.)

We conclude Ayala has not demonstrated that the evidence he presented at the hearing was of such a character and weight as to leave no room for the court to determine that evidence was insufficient to support a finding in his favor. Rather, as the trial court noted, Ayala’s testimony acknowledged still-concerning behavior, as well as presence of psychotic symptoms. For example, the evidence demonstrated Ayala appeared to continue to demonstrate some paranoia, and Ayala conceded that hospital staff continued to provide support to assist him during outbursts or difficulties. These supports would be unavailable in an outpatient setting. In sum, the evidence presented at the hearing did not compel a finding of sufficient restoration of sanity so as to require his release to a conditional release program as a matter of law. There is thus no basis for reversal of the court’s order on the ground Ayala implicitly raises.

In light of our analysis above, we decline to exercise our discretion to independently review the record on appeal for reversible error. (Cf. People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231–232 [in a Pen. Code, § 1172.6 resentencing case, when appointed counsel submits brief finding no arguable issues, appellate court must evaluate specific arguments in appellant’s supplemental brief, but it need not independently review record on appeal to identify unraised issues].)

DISPOSITION

The order denying Ayala’s request for restoration of sanity and conditional release under section 1026.2 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.

KELETY, J. * Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.