The People, Plaintiff and Respondent v. David Alan Lara, Defendant and Appellant — Baxter, J., Concurring

Summary

Justice Baxter concurred only in the judgment reversing the Court of Appeal and disagreed with the majority's reasoning. He would resolve the case on statutory harmless-error grounds: although the commitment-extension deadlines were violated, Lara showed no prejudice because he had more than seven months to prepare and did not claim that his defense was impaired. He also reasoned that unauthorized post-expiration confinement could warrant separate civil relief but did not invalidate a fair and reliable commitment proceeding. Justice Baxter, concurring, would have rejected the majority's broader due process analysis and disapproved precedent treating late filing or continued confinement as automatic prejudice.