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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
2
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
3
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
4
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
1 To the extent Ayala’s letter refers to matters that were not part of the
record on appeal, we disregard those references and do not consider them in
reaching our disposition of this appeal. (Christ v. Schwartz (2016) 2
Cal.App.5th 440, 450, fn. 5; Kendall v. Barker (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 619,
625.)
5
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].)
6
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.
7