People v. Smith CA2/1

Opinion

Filed 8/25/26 P. v. Smith CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B350785

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 25CJCF02049) v. ELIJAH SMITH, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ronald Owen Kaye, Judge. Dismissed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________ This appeal follows an order finding defendant Elijah Smith, Jr. incompetent to stand trial and committing him to the Porterville Developmental Center. Defendant’s appointed counsel has identified no arguable issue on appeal, and we dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND On April 15, 2025, the People filed a felony complaint charging defendant with stalking with a prior conviction for stalking. The People separately alleged a prior conviction for stalking and a prior serious or violent felony conviction. Defendant pleaded not guilty. In July 2025, the court suspended criminal proceedings after defense counsel declared a doubt as to defendant’s competency. Two physicians found defendant incompetent to stand trial. The South Central Los Angeles Regional Center submitted a report recommending that the trial court order defendant placed at the Porterville Developmental Center. In December 2025, the court found defendant incompetent to stand trial pursuant to Penal Code section 1370.1 due to a developmental disability.1 The court ordered defendant be placed under the supervision of the State Department of Developmental Services and more specifically, the Porterville Developmental Center. The trial court ordered defendant’s commitment to not exceed two years.

1 Penal Code section 1370.1, subdivision (a)(1)(B) provides: “If the defendant is found mentally incompetent and has been determined by a regional center to have a developmental disability, the trial or judgment shall be suspended until the defendant becomes mentally competent.”

2 On appeal, defendant’s counsel filed a brief identifying no issue. Defendant’s appellate counsel requests this court follow the procedures identified in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.). Counsel filed a declaration stating that he has written to defendant and informed defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief and that the court will dismiss the appeal if defendant does not file a supplemental brief. This court also sent a letter to defendant permitting him to file a supplemental brief. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.

DISCUSSION Criminal defendants in California who have been found incompetent to stand trial are committed to the State Department of State Hospitals or the State Department of Developmental Services to receive services to restore their competency. (Stiavetti v. Clendenin (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 691, 694.) The proceeding to determine whether the defendant is competent is a special proceeding, not a criminal action. (People v. Fields (1965) 62 Cal.2d 538, 540.) An order finding a defendant incompetent is appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1). (People v. Christiana (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1045–1046, citing Fields, at pp. 540, 542.) In Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 535, our high court held that independent review afforded to criminal defendants in their first appeal as a matter of right where appointed counsel has found no arguable issues does not apply to conservatorship proceedings under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). Ben C. holds: “If appointed counsel in a conservatorship appeal finds no arguable issues, counsel need not and should not file a motion to withdraw. Instead, counsel 3 should (1) inform the court he or she has found no arguable issues to be pursued on appeal; and (2) file a brief setting out the applicable facts and the law. Such a brief will provide an adequate basis for the court to dismiss the appeal on its own motion. Dismissal of an appeal raising no arguable issues is not inconsistent with article VI, section 14 of the California Constitution requiring that decisions determining causes ‘be in writing with reasons stated.’ Nothing is served by requiring a written opinion when the court does not actually decide any contested issues.” (Ben C., supra, at p. 544, fns. omitted.) The procedures outlined in Ben C. apply to criminal defendants who are found mentally incompetent to stand trial. (People v. Blanchard (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1020, 1025.) Here, we dismiss the appeal because counsel has identified no arguable issue and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. (Id. at p. 1026.)

DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BENDIX, Acting P. J.

We concur:

WEINGART, J. M. KIM, J.