Opinion
E076704
07-27-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L.W., Defendant and Appellant.
L.W., in propria persona; and Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. No. FELJS20000192 Lorenzo R. Balderrama, Judge. Affirmed.
L.W., in propria persona; and Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
MILLER Acting P. J.
Defendant and appellant L.W. appeals from the trial court's order recommitting her to the California Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for one year as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, §§ 2966, 2972.) Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. In addition, defendant has had an opportunity to file a supplemental brief with this court and has done so in a one-page letter. We affirm.
All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In April 2018, defendant resisted arrest, causing injury to an officer, as she was being escorted out of a Planned Parenthood for creating a disturbance. After defendant's mental competency was restored, in December 2018, defendant pleaded nolo contendere to one count of felony resisting arrest (§ 69) with threat or violence. (See People v. L.W. (Oct. 9, 2020, E074619) [nonpub. opn.] at p. 3.)
On July 17, 2019, defendant was admitted to DSH under the Mentally Disordered Offender Act (MDOA) pursuant to section 2962.
On July 30, 2020, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) determined that defendant met the requirements for continued commitment under the MDOA.
On September 1, 2020, defendant filed a section 2966, subdivision (c) petition to challenge the BPH's determination.
On December 9, 2020, defendant personally waived her right to a jury trial. The parties submitted the matter to the trial court based on six exhibits filed by the People. These exhibits indicated that defendant suffers from schizophrenia, and as of July 30, 2020, she was not in remission. In addition, during her most recent interview, defendant was unable to name the medications she was taking and believed her psychologist was her elementary school teacher. Furthermore, defendant continued to display disorganized thought, confusion, delusions, irritability, intolerance, poor judgment, and paranoid ideations. According to her psychologist, defendant showed poor insight into her condition, remained unaware of her mental health symptoms, did not connect her past violent behavior with her mental health, and was not compliant with her medication. Defendant believed she did not have mental health issues and had no realistic or viable discharge plans.
On March 3, 2021, the trial court found defendant qualified for continued commitment to DSH and denied defendant's petition challenging the BPH's findings. Defendant timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon her request, this court appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and she has done so.
Counsel acknowledges authorities holding that MDO commitment cases such as defendant's are exempt from Anders/Wende procedures (People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304 (Taylor)), and, that such procedures do not apply to orders extending the civil commitment of an individual previously found not guilty by reason of insanity where counsel finds no arguable appellate issues and the client is given an opportunity to file a brief but does not. (People v. Martinez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1226 (Martinez).) Counsel also acknowledges these decisions rely in part on Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 538, in which the California Supreme Court held that appeals from Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.) conservatorship proceedings are not subject to Anders/Wende review. The Anders/Wende procedures apply only to an indigent criminal defendant's first appeal as a matter of right. (Taylor, at p. 312; Martinez, at pp. 1230, 1233, 1236; see In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 838 [reiterating Ben C. holding]; In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 959 [Anders/Wende do not extend to indigent parent's appeal of an order adversely affecting custody or parental status].)
Generally, we follow Taylor, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th 304, in which the prisoner there was also certified for MDO treatment as a condition of parole. (Id. at p. 312.) As Taylor pointed out, this court is bound by the high court's characterization of the MDO Act as a “ ‘civil commitment scheme.' ” (Ibid., quoting In re Howard N. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 117, 127.) However, here, unlike in Taylor, defendant filed a supplemental brief identifying issues she wanted us to consider. In her one-page, one-sentence letter brief, defendant claims that her mental health is in remission as she has been taking her medication for the past three years and attending group classes and that she is not a danger to herself or others as long as she takes her medication. Defendant's assertions belie the record on appeal, which shows that defendant is still suffering from schizophrenia and is not in remission. She also has poor insight into her condition, basically believing she has no mental health issues. Accordingly, we reject these contentions.
Defendant's appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues. Because this is an appeal from an order extending defendant's commitment as a mentally disordered offender, Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 do not require us to read the entire record ourselves to look for arguable grounds for reversal. (Taylor, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at pp. 311-312.) Defendant filed a personal supplemental brief and we addressed her arguments. But we will not independently review the record to search for additional issues. (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039-1040.)
DISPOSITION
We affirm.
We concur: RAPHAEL J.MENETREZ J.