People v. Howard CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D063821 · 2013-12-11 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD213029, SCS218537
Trial judge: Peter C. Deddeh
Outcome: dismissed — Appeal dismissed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith L. Haller (author), Alex C. McDonald, McINTYRE

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:47Z · confidence high

The trial court ordered the continuation of the appellant's involuntary treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) based on his executed waiver of rights. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, declining to apply Wende/Anders review procedures to MDO cases and finding no arguable issues raised by the appellant.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Order continuing involuntary treatment as an MDO “Because appellant 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.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court did not review the merits of the trial court's order because it determined that the Wende/Anders procedure, which would have required a full review for potential error, did not apply to MDO commitment cases. Instead, the court relied on the appellant's failure to identify specific legal errors in his supplemental letter to justify dismissing the appeal without a substantive review of the commitment order's correctness.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief when no arguable issues exist, requiring the court to independently review the record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and the court to independently review the record if counsel finds none.
relied: People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304 — Holds that Wende/Anders procedures are not applicable to MDO commitment cases.
relied: In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 — Declined to apply Wende/Anders procedures to orders adversely affecting custody rights or parental status.
relied: In re Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 — Holds that Lanterman-Petris-Short Act conservatorship proceedings are not subject to Wende/Anders review and provides recommendations for handling appeals where counsel finds no issues.
relied: People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 — Supports the dismissal of an appeal when the appellant fails to raise an arguable issue, consistent with Ben C. recommendations.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the holding in People v. Taylor, which is binding on the Fourth District, to exclude MDO cases from Wende/Anders review. It also properly follows the Ben C. protocol by allowing the appellant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief and dismissing the appeal when no legal issues were identified.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The trial court, on the defendant's written stipulation and waiver of trial rights, ordered his involuntary treatment as a mentally disordered offender extended one year to May 3, 2014. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a no-issue brief; the Court of Appeal followed People v. Taylor and Conservatorship of Ben C., declined to conduct Wende/Anders review of the MDO recommitment, found the defendant's supplemental letter raised no issue concerning the commitment, and dismissed the appeal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Order extending appellant's involuntary MDO commitment under Penal Code sections 2970 and 2972 for one year, entered on appellant's declaration agreeing to the extension and waiving jury trial and related rights “Because appellant 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.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The court did not evaluate the merits of the recommitment order; it held that independent Wende/Anders review is unavailable in MDO proceedings, relying on Taylor, which in turn applied the Supreme Court's reasoning in Sade C. and Ben C. Ben C. expressly permits dismissal where neither counsel nor the appellant identifies an arguable issue, and the appellant's supplemental letter concerned a blanket and camera in his 2008 criminal case, not the commitment. The procedural path and disposition are consistent with the cited authorities, and the recommitment itself rested on the appellant's own stipulation.

Authorities

relied: People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304 — Wende/Anders independent review procedures do not apply to appeals from MDO commitment orders.
relied: Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 — Wende/Anders review does not extend to LPS conservatorship proceedings; counsel may file a brief setting out facts and law, the appellant may file a supplemental brief, and the court may dismiss if no arguable issue is raised.
relied: In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 — Wende/Anders procedures are not required in appeals from orders adversely affecting custody rights or parental status.
relied: People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 — Where Wende review is unavailable and the appellant raises no arguable issue after notice, the appeal may be dismissed.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the California procedure for independent appellate review when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues in a criminal appeal.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Sets federal constitutional procedure for appointed counsel who finds a criminal appeal wholly frivolous.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies Taylor and Ben C. to decline independent review of an MDO recommitment and follows the Ben C. procedure of notice and opportunity for a supplemental brief before dismissing. It is brief and does not independently analyze why MDO proceedings fall outside Wende, but it relies on directly applicable authority and nothing suggests a misreading of the law.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 12/11/13 P. v. Howard 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, D063821

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD213029, SCS218537) BRANDON LORENZO HOWARD, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter C.

Deddeh, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Laurel M. Nelson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal.

No appearance by Respondent.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 5, 2008, Brandon Lorenzo Howard pled guilty in case number SCD213029 to a violation of Penal Code section 69, resisting an order of an executive officer, and admitted a strike prior conviction. This case arose from an incident in January when a deputy sheriff at the San Diego County jail instructed appellant to return to his cell and when the deputy reached out to escort him back to his cell, appellant punched the deputy in the eye. On June 16, 2008, appellant pled guilty in case number SCS218537 to a violation of Penal Code section 69. This case arose from an incident in March when appellant, who was in a holding cell awaiting transport to a court proceeding, swung at and hit a deputy sheriff above his eye.

In October 2008, appellant was sentenced to two years 8 months in state prison in case number SCD213029 and to a concurrent term of two years in case number SCS218537. After serving his sentence, and while on parole, appellant was hospitalized in May 2010 at Atascadero State Hospital as a mentally disordered offender (MDO)

pursuant to Penal Code section 2962. He was conditionally released to San Diego County in April 2012 and shortly thereafter was admitted to Patton State Hospital as an MDO. At the time of his admission, appellant's parole termination date was May 3, 2013.

In January 2013, the District Attorney's office filed a petition to extend appellant's involuntary treatment as an MDO from May 3, 2013 to May 3, 2014 pursuant to Penal Code sections 2970 and 2972. On March 29, 2013 appellant executed a declaration agreeing to an extension of his commitment as an MDO for one year to May 3, 2014. In that declaration he waived his right to a jury trial, to subpoena and cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence on his own behalf, to be present at all proceedings, and to be examined by two independent doctors. On March 29, the court ordered that appellant's involuntary treatment be continued.

2 ANALYSIS

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal concerning the order continuing appellant's involuntary commitment as an MDO 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 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 Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, our Supreme Court declined to apply Wende/Anders procedures to orders adversely affecting custody rights or parental status, and in In re Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.) held that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 5000 et seq.) conservatorship proceedings are not subject to Wende/Anders review. Appellant's counsel recognized the Taylor court relied on the reasoning in these two Supreme Court cases 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, appellant counsel has prepared a brief setting forth the facts and the law, and has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to file a supplemental brief. Our court has also provided appellant with a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to file a supplemental brief. Appellant responded with a two- 3 page letter which raises factual questions concerning a blanket and camera he asserts are relevant in case number SCD213029. However, he does not identify any issues concerning the involuntary commitment proceeding.

Because appellant 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.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

HALLER, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

MCDONALD, J.

MCINTYRE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Serrano No. H036373 · 2012-11-28
People v. Taylor B194403 · 2008-02-20
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Ben C. S126664 · 2007-02-05
In Re Sade C. S048796 · 1996-08-26
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12