Filed 3/20/14 P. v. A.C. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E059006
v. (Super.Ct.No. FELSS1204679)
A.C., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steve Malone,
Judge. Dismissed.
Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A.C. appeals from a jury determination that she qualifies as a Mentally Disordered
Offender (MDO) under Penal Code section 2962. As discussed below, we dismiss the
appeal.
1
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 9, 2008, the trial court in Los Angeles County sentenced A.C. to four
years in prison for burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). When A.C. was released on parole in
2010, the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) declared her an MDO. The BPT renewed this
declaration on March 1, 2011, and again on August 30, 2012.
On October 18, 2012, A.C. filed a petition challenging the August 30, 2012,
determination and requesting appointment of counsel. The jury trial on A.C.’s challenge
began on June 4, 2013. The jury heard testimony from a clinical psychologist who
treated A.C. at Patton State Hospital, a staff psychiatrist at Patton who had also treated
A.C. in prison, and a staff psychiatrist who treated A.C. at Patton. Each of these
witnesses testified that A.C. suffers from a mental disorder, she was not in remission as
of August 30, 2012, and she posed a substantial danger of physical harm to others
because of her mental disorder. Defendant also testified. On June 13, 2013, the jury
determined that A.C. qualified as an MDO.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and
proceedings below and drawing this court’s attention to the applicable law on sufficiency
of the evidence in MDO proceedings. Counsel presents no actual argument for reversal
and requests this court to review the commitment proceedings in accord with People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. In making
this request, counsel notes that in People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, the
2
Second District considered whether the Wende/Anders procedures were applicable to
MDO commitment cases and concluded they were not. (Petition for review denied by the
California Supreme Court on May 21, 2008, S162026.) Counsel also acknowledges that
in In re Conservatorship of Ben. C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.) our Supreme Court
held that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§5000 et seq.)
conservatorship proceedings are not subject to Wende/Anders review. A.C.’s counsel
recognized the Taylor court relied on the reasoning in Ben. C. in reaching its holding.
We agree with People v. Taylor and decline to apply Wende/Anders procedures to this
MDO case.
In accordance with recommendations set forth in Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at page
544, A.C.’s counsel has prepared a brief setting forth the facts and the law, and has
provided appellant with a copy of the brief and informed her of her right to file a
supplemental brief. Our court has also provided A.C. with a copy of the brief and
informed her of her right to file a supplemental brief. A.C. did not file a supplemental
brief.
Because A.C. has failed to raise an arguable issue on appeal from an order of
recommitment, we decline to retain this case as is permitted by Ben C. and dismiss the
appeal. (Ben. C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th
496, 501.)
3
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
4