People v. Acosta CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD176268
- Trial judge
- Eugenia Eyherabide
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Gilbert Nares, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court found that Acosta continued to qualify as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) and recommitted him to Patton State Hospital for one year after he waived his right to a jury trial. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Recommitment of Acosta as a Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO)“The court found Acosta continued to qualify as a MDO. Acosta was recommitted for another one-year period.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not independently review the sufficiency of the evidence or the legal correctness of the MDO finding because appellate counsel filed a Wende brief stating no reasonably arguable issues existed, and the court's own review of the record confirmed this. The court affirmed the judgment without addressing the merits of the recommitment itself. |
Waiver of Right to Jury Trial“Whether Acosta knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial for the recommitment proceeding.” | unclear | not reached | unsure Appellate counsel identified the validity of the jury trial waiver as a possible issue but concluded it was not reasonably arguable. The appellate court accepted this assessment and did not conduct a detailed analysis of the waiver's validity, relying instead on the Wende/Anders framework to affirm the judgment. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to identify any reasonably arguable issues and, if none are found, to file a brief requesting the court to independently review the record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from representation on appeal when no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and a court review of the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis of the underlying MDO recommitment or the jury trial waiver, relying entirely on the absence of 'reasonably arguable' issues.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe San Diego Superior Court, after Acosta personally waived jury trial and related trial rights, found on two psychologists' written reports that he still met the mentally disordered offender criteria under Penal Code section 2962 and recommitted him for one year. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying only the jury-waiver question as a possible issue; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order recommitting Acosta as a mentally disordered offender for one year based on the written psychological evaluations“The court found Acosta continued to qualify as a MDO.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion recites that both evaluators found the disorder not in remission, that Acosta had poor insight and a history of treatment noncompliance, had made a threat to staff, and posed a substantial danger of physical harm to others, which tracks the statutory criteria of sections 2962 and 2972. Acosta personally waived jury trial and his confrontation, testimony and silence rights, so trial on the reports alone was consensual. Nothing in the recited record suggests an arguable sufficiency or procedural error, though the opinion applies no articulated standard beyond Wende review. |
Acceptance of Acosta's personal waiver of jury trial for the recommitment proceeding“Whether Acosta knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial for the recommitment proceeding.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion states that Acosta, represented by counsel, personally waived jury trial and the other trial rights, which satisfies People v. Blackburn's requirement of a personal advisement and waiver in MDO proceedings absent evidence of incompetence. The court, however, does not cite Blackburn or explain why the waiver was knowing and voluntary, simply declaring the issue not reasonably arguable. The result appears defensible on the stated facts, but the reasoning is conclusory. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appointed appellate counsel who finds no arguable issues may file a brief so stating, and the appellate court must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel filing a no-merit brief should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- missed: People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1116 — In an MDO commitment or recommitment trial, the court must advise the defendant personally of the right to a jury trial and obtain a personal waiver unless there is substantial evidence the defendant lacks capacity to make a knowing and voluntary waiver; this directly governs the one issue counsel identified.
- missed: Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 — Wende/Anders independent review procedures are not constitutionally required in civil commitment appeals (LPS conservatorships), and the court may dismiss when counsel finds no arguable issues.
- missed: People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304 — Wende review does not apply to appeals from MDO commitment orders, which are civil in nature; the court should have addressed whether full Wende review was required here rather than assuming it.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is defensible: Acosta personally waived jury trial and the evaluators' reports, as summarized, support each MDO criterion, so affirmance follows. But the court conducted Wende review without acknowledging Ben C. and Taylor, which hold such review is not required in MDO appeals, and it disposed of the jury-waiver issue without citing or applying Blackburn, the controlling authority on that exact question.
Opinion
Filed 4/12/16 P. v. Acosta 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, D069300
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD176268)
JUAN RUBEN ACOSTA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.
Michele Anne Cella, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
In February 2004, Juan Ruben Acosta pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1)). Acosta was sentenced to prison for a four- year term.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. In 2007, Acosta was found to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO) within the meaning of section 2962. Acosta was committed to Patton State Hospital for a period of one year and has been recommitted seven times since then.
In 2015 the District Attorney again filed a petition to continue Acosta as a MDO.
Thereafter, Acosta, represented by counsel, personally waived his right to a jury trial and his right to confrontation, right to testify and present evidence and his privilege to remain silent. The trial was conducted based only on the written reports of two psychologists who had evaluated Acosta. The court found Acosta continued to qualify as a MDO.
Acosta was recommitted for another one-year period.
Acosta filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating she has been unable to identify any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Acosta the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Mr. Acosta was first diagnosed with a mental disorder when he was incarcerated in Texas. He had a history of homelessness. He was charged in 2003 in California with assault with a deadly weapon after stabbing a man, and in 2003 was committed to the Department of Mental Health. He was initially admitted to Patton in 2003 because he was mentally incompetent to stand trial.
2 At the time of his initial admission to Patton, he said he heard voices telling him to cut people, and saw many spirits. He was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, polysubstance dependence and personality disorder with antisocial features.
By the time of the May 5, 2015 letter to the District Attorney from Patton, Mr.
Acosta was 50 years old. In February 2015 he briefly entered an intensive substance abuse treatment program, but dropped out of it because it was too difficult. He had only attended 63 percent of his assigned groups during the previous treatment year. However, he did not commit any physical assaults, threaten another person, or destroy hospital property. He was cooperative with his antipsychotic medication. The only incident that occurred within the past year was that he inappropriately scratched his crotch in front of female peers. He has poor insight into his mental illness and a long history of noncompliance with treatment.
Psychologist David L. Bloch, Ph.D., wrote an evaluation saying Mr. Acosta is a bully and can demonstrate angry and irritable behavior. He opined that Mr. Acosta met MDO criteria, that his mental illness was not in remission and that could not be kept in remission without continued treatment because he did not follow his treatment plan as a reasonable person would. Also, Mr. Acosta represented a substantial danger of causing physical harm to others because of his lack of insight into his mental illness and because he had made a threat. At one point he told a staff member to "watch out," and that was "not a threat, but a promise." He was not recommended for CONREP eligibility. Dr.
Bloch recommended Mr. Acosta be considered for CONREP in a six-month period.
3 Randy E. Scotland, Ph.D., conducted another evaluation. He concluded that Mr.
Acosta's mental disorder was not in remission, and that he continued to exhibit symptoms of paranoia and schizophrenia. He also opined that Mr. Acosta had "a long history of aggressive, violent, and threatening behavior towards others and staff due to paranoia and poor impulse control. . . . He has poor insight into his mental illness [and] a long history of noncompliance with treatment." Dr. Scotland concluded that Mr. Acosta's mental disorder was not in remission, he represented a substantial danger of physical harm to others, and he could not be successfully treated on an outpatient basis.
DISCUSSION
As we have indicated, appellate counsel has asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. As required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified the following possible, but not reasonably arguable issue:
Whether Acosta knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial for the recommitment proceeding.
We have reviewed the entire record and have not identified any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Acosta on this appeal.
4 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
NARES, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12