P. v. F.B. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D062557 · 2013-03-05 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE236759MH107539
Trial judge: Dwayne K. Moring
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: McINTYRE (author), Judith L. Haller, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:57Z · confidence high

The trial court found the defendant incompetent to stand trial and authorized the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable issues of error.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Finding of incompetence to stand trial and authorization of involuntary antipsychotic medication “A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court did not apply a specific standard of review (such as abuse of discretion) to the trial court's findings because it was conducting a Wende/Anders review. The court determined that the issues raised by counsel were not 'reasonably arguable' and therefore did not merit a substantive legal analysis of the trial court's discretion. This is a procedural determination to affirm based on the absence of viable arguments rather than a substantive endorsement of the trial court's legal application.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record to identify any reasonably arguable issues when no argument is presented.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues while arguing they are frivolous, allowing the court to review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where counsel finds no arguable issues. It accurately states that the independent review disclosed no reasonably arguable errors, which is the proper basis for affirmance in this context.

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 superior court found F.B. incompetent to stand trial on assault and vandalism charges, found she lacked capacity to consent to antipsychotic medication, committed her to Patton State Hospital for a maximum of three years, and authorized involuntary medication. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, F.B. filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Finding that F.B. was not mentally competent to stand trial (Pen. Code, § 1368 et seq.) “In August, the court found F.B. was not mentally competent to stand trial and lacked capacity to give or withhold informed consent to the administration of antipsychotic medication.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion does not articulate a standard; counsel framed the issue as abuse of discretion, though competency findings are ordinarily tested for substantial evidence. The psychiatrist's report that F.B. was delusional, illogical, could not understand the proceedings, and could not rationally assist counsel supplies evidence supporting the finding, so the court's conclusion that no arguable issue exists is defensible on this record.
Order committing F.B. to Patton State Hospital for a maximum term of three years and authorizing involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication (Pen. Code, § 1370) “The court ordered F.B. committed to Patton State Hospital for a maximum term of three years and authorized involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The psychiatrist's findings track the statutory elements for involuntary medication under section 1370, subdivision (a)(2)(B): a mental disorder requiring treatment, likely benefit, medication in her best medical interest, lack of capacity, no alternative treatment, and likelihood of restoration. The opinion gives only a summary and does not discuss the evidence at the hearing or the three-year maximum, so I cannot be certain, but nothing in the recited record suggests error.
Independent Wende/Anders review of the whole record finding no reasonably arguable appellate issues “has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. F.B. has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court followed the Wende procedure: counsel's brief summarized the proceedings and listed possible issues, the appellant was given the opportunity to file her own brief, and the court independently reviewed the record. The court did not pause on whether Wende review is required at all in an appeal from a competency commitment, but conducting the review could only benefit the appellant.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for error before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal without merit may so advise the court, referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court then decides whether the appeal is frivolous.
missed: Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 — Wende independent review is not constitutionally required in non-criminal civil commitment appeals (LPS conservatorships); the court did not address whether Wende review was required in this appeal from a section 1370 competency commitment, though it applied the procedure anyway.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders procedure, summarizes the record, identifies the possible issues counsel raised, and finds the psychiatric evidence supports the competency and medication findings. It is thin, stating no standard of review and not addressing whether Wende review even applies to a competency-commitment appeal, but any gap favored the appellant and the result is defensible.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 3/5/13 P. v. F.B. 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, D062557

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCE236759 & MH107539) F.B., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed.

A complaint filed in May 2012, charged F.B. with assault with a deadly weapon with personal use of a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 1192.7, subd.

(c)(23); all further statutory references are to this code) and vandalism (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)), and alleged she had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In August, the court found F.B. was not mentally competent to stand trial and lacked capacity to give or withhold informed consent to the administration of antipsychotic medication. The court ordered F.B. committed to Patton State Hospital for a maximum term of three years and authorized involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication. F.B. appeals.

We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The complaint alleged that on May 24, 2012, F.B. assaulted the victim with a metal broom and committed vandalism causing at least $400 in damage. In July, a psychiatrist evaluated F.B. and reported she was delusional and unable to carry on a rational conversation. She exhibited an illogical thought process and behaved in a bizarre, psychotic manner. She suffered from bipolar disorder and cocaine dependence.

The psychiatrist determined F.B.'s mental disorder required treatment with antipsychotic medication, she would benefit from the medication, the medication was in her best medical interest, she lacked the capacity to make decisions regarding the medication, there were no alternative treatments and the treatment was likely to restore her to competence. The psychiatrist concluded F.B. did not have an adequate understanding of the nature of the proceedings against her and could not assist her attorney in a rational manner in her own defense. He recommended she be referred to a state hospital for restoration to competency.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below.

Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel lists, as possible, but not arguable, issues:

2 whether the court abused its discretion by finding F.B. incompetent to stand trial, and in authorizing involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication.

We granted F.B. permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. F.B. has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

MCINTYRE, J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12