Summary
In People v. Smith (2005) 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 94 (Smith), review granted July 13, 2005, S133593, our colleagues in Division Five of the Second District addressed precisely this issue and concluded, in light especially of our Supreme Court’s decision in In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 978-983, that the unique Wende process is not mandated in cases brought under the MDOA.
Summary of this case from People v. PutnamOpinion
Page __
__ Cal.4th __ 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 94, 115 P.3d 416 PEOPLE v. SMITH. No. S133593. Supreme Court of California July 13, 2005Prior report: Cal.App., 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 50.
Review granted/briefing deferred (rule 29.1).
Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Conservatorship of Ben C., S126664 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 28.2(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court. Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 29.1, is deferred pending further order of the court.
GEORGE, C.J., was absent and did not participate.
WERDEGAR, A.C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, CHIN, and MORENO, JJ., concur.