People v. Santos CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD276196
- Trial judge
- Kimberlee A. Lagotta
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Laurence D. Rubin (author), William S. Dato, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court held a bench trial and determined that the People proved by clear and convincing evidence that Santos remained a danger to others due to a severe mental disorder, thereby recommitting him as an offender with a mental health disorder for one year. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to *People v. Wende* and finding no arguable issues of error.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Recommitment of defendant as an offender with a mental health disorder (OMHD) for one year under Penal Code sections 2970 and 2972.“Ultimately, the court determined the petition’s allegations were true and recommitted Santos to the Department of State Hospitals for an additional one year term, until August 11, 2025.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review applied to the trial court's factual findings (e.g., substantial evidence or abuse of discretion). Instead, the court states it conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to *People v. Wende* and *Conservatorship of Ben C.* because appointed counsel raised no specific issues. The court concludes there is no reversible error based on this independent review, effectively affirming the trial court's decision without analyzing the specific legal standard for OMHD recommitment. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record to identify arguable issues when no issues are raised in the brief.
- relied: Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 — Establishes the procedure for independent review of the record in cases involving involuntary commitments or conservatorships when counsel finds no arguable issues.
- relied: People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304 — Supports the application of independent review procedures in criminal appeals where counsel files a *Wende* brief.
- relied: People v. McCray (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 260 — Clarifies the legislative change in terminology from 'mentally disordered offender' (MDO) to 'offender with a mental health disorder' (OMHD).
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of the *Wende* and *Ben C.* independent review protocols, as it correctly identifies the lack of raised issues and performs the required review. However, it is substantively thin because it fails to articulate the specific standard of review (substantial evidence or abuse of discretion) applicable to OMHD recommitment hearings, relying solely on the general finding of 'no reversible error' from the independent review.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionAfter a bench trial on the People's petition under Penal Code sections 2970 and 2972, the San Diego Superior Court found the allegations true and recommitted Taurino Jose Santos to the Department of State Hospitals as an offender with a mental health disorder for one additional year ending August 11, 2025. Appointed counsel filed a no-issues brief under Conservatorship of Ben C. and People v. Taylor, Santos filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order finding the section 2970 recommitment petition true and extending Santos's OMHD commitment for one year“Ultimately, the court determined the petition’s allegations were true and recommitted Santos to the Department of State Hospitals for an additional one year term, until August 11, 2025.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion does not state a standard but conducts an independent Ben C./Wende-style review of the record. The recited facts show a medical director, a hospital psychologist, and two court-appointed examiners all diagnosed a severe mental disorder and all opined Santos remained dangerous, citing recent outbursts and fights Santos himself admitted; one examiner's view that symptoms were in remission does not undermine the finding because the statute also reaches a disorder that cannot be kept in remission without treatment, and the trier of fact resolves conflicting expert opinion. On this record the affirmance is supported, though the court gives no analysis of its own. |
Appellate court's decision to conduct independent record review in an OMHD recommitment appeal despite counsel's no-issues brief and no supplemental brief from appellant“We have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Ben C. and have not found any reasonable arguable appellate issues.” | de novo | correct | agree with court Ben C. held Wende review is not constitutionally required in civil commitment-type proceedings, and Taylor applied that to MDO (now OMHD) appeals, leaving courts discretion to review anyway. The court gave Santos notice and an opportunity to file a supplemental brief and then chose to review the record; that is consistent with the cited authority and prejudices no one. |
Authorities
- relied: Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 — Wende independent review is not required in conservatorship appeals; when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the court may allow the appellant to file a supplemental brief and may dismiss or review the record in its discretion.
- relied: People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304 — Ben C. procedures, not mandatory Wende review, apply to appeals from mentally disordered offender commitment orders.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — In a criminal appeal where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record.
- relied: People v. McCray (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 260 — The Legislature in 2019 changed the terminology from mentally disordered offender to offender with a mental health disorder.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly identified that Ben C. and Taylor, not Wende, govern no-issues briefs in OMHD appeals, gave the appellant an opportunity to brief, and exercised discretion to review the record, and the recited evidence supports the recommitment. The opinion is conclusory, however: it does not state the substantial-evidence standard or explain why the one examiner's remission opinion does not matter, and it does not address whether the appeal became moot when the one-year term expired on August 11, 2025, before the September 8, 2025 decision.
Opinion
Filed 9/8/25 P. v. Santos 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, D084629
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD276196)
TAURINO JOSE SANTOS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kimberlee A. Lagotta, Judge. Affirmed. Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Taurino Jose Santos appeals from a judgment following bench trial recommitting him as an offender with mental health disorder (OMHD) under Penal Code sections 2970 and 2972.1 His counsel submitted a brief pursuant to Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.) and People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, stating he found no arguable issues on appeal. He urged this court to conduct an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We granted Santos the opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf and he has not done so. As explained below, we conclude there is no reversible error and therefore affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2018, Santos pled guilty to one count of felonious assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury. (§ 245, subd. (a)(4).) The court sentenced Santos to a total prison term of eight years. In 2022, Santos was committed to the Department of State Hospitals as an OMHD under section 2962. In 2024, prior to Santos’s parole termination date, the People sought a one-year extension of Santos’s commitment under sections 2970 and 2972. In support of the April 2024 petition, the People attached an affidavit from the medical director of a state hospital. The medical director opined that Santos’s severe mental disorder was not in remission and necessitated continued treatment under section 2970. A psychologist working at the state hospital confirmed the medical director’s opinion, detailing Santos’s Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type. Santos denied the allegations in the petition and requested a bench trial. The court appointed two doctors to examine Santos and provide opinions about whether his commitment should be extended. Both doctors 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. OMHD prisoners were previously referred to as mentally disordered offenders or MDOs, but the Legislature changed the terminology in 2019. (People v. McCray (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 260, 264, fn. 1.) 2 agreed that Santos suffered from a severe mental disorder. In contravention of the majority opinion, one of the examining doctors believed Santos’s symptoms of Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type, to be in remission. However, all three doctors opined that Santos remained a danger and recommended recommitment to a state hospital. They cited a series of outbursts in the preceding year and a history of relapses. Finally, Santos testified, asserting his symptoms were controlled and he participated in a variety of supportive programs. He described his medication as helpful, but admitted to getting in a series of fights at the hospital. Santos described a plan to access care and requested release. Ultimately, the court determined the petition’s allegations were true and recommitted Santos to the Department of State Hospitals for an additional one year term, until August 11, 2025. DISCUSSION Santos’s appointed counsel filed a brief under the authority of Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, setting forth a statement of the case and a summary of the facts and procedural history. Counsel raised no specific issues on appeal, urging this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to Ben C., supra. Nor has Santos set forth any specific argument that there was reversible error. We have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Ben C. and have not found any reasonable arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Santos on appeal.
3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
RUBIN, J.
WE CONCUR:
DATO, Acting P. J.
KELETY, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Taylor B194403 · 2008-02-20
- San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Ben C. S126664 · 2007-02-05
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12