People v. Epps CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D082774 · 2024-03-13 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE171653
Trial judge: Carlos O. Armour
Outcome: dismissed — Appeal Dismissed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Joan K. Irion (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Laurence D. Rubin

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:16Z · confidence high

The trial court ordered the defendant's continued involuntary commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) following a bench trial. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying no arguable issues, and the court declined to apply Wende/Anders procedures to MDO cases.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Order continuing involuntary commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) “the court found that Epps suffers from a severe mental disorder that is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment, and that he represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others by virtue of that severe mental disorder, and ordered that he be committed to a state hospital until August 2024.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not review the merits of the trial court's commitment order because it dismissed the appeal based on procedural grounds (failure to raise arguable issues and inapplicability of Wende/Anders).
Dismissal of appeal due to inapplicability of Wende/Anders procedures to MDO commitments “We agree with People v. Taylor and decline to apply Wende/Anders procedures to this MDO case.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court correctly applied the holding in Conservatorship of Ben C. and People v. Taylor that Wende/Anders independent review does not apply to MDO commitments, distinguishing them from LPS civil commitments.

Authorities

relied: Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 — Wende/Anders independent review procedures do not apply to civil commitments pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act.
relied: People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304 — Wende/Anders procedures do not apply to MDO commitment cases.
relied: People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 — Supports the dismissal of an appeal where no arguable issues are raised in an MDO recommitment context.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the standard for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying no arguable issues in criminal appeals.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the standard for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying no arguable issues in criminal appeals.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the binding authority from Conservatorship of Ben C. and People v. Taylor to determine that Wende/Anders procedures are inapplicable to MDO commitments. It follows the recommended procedure from Ben C. by allowing the appellant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief before dismissing the appeal.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

After a bench trial, the San Diego Superior Court found that Epps still suffers from a severe mental disorder that is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment and that he is a substantial danger to others, and extended his mentally disordered offender (MDO) commitment to August 2024 under Penal Code sections 2970 and 2972. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a no-issue brief requesting Wende/Anders review; the Court of Appeal, following Conservatorship of Ben C. and People v. Taylor, declined to conduct independent review in an MDO case and dismissed the appeal because appellant raised no arguable issue.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Order extending Epps's involuntary MDO commitment for one year under Penal Code sections 2970 and 2972 after a bench trial “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 instead dismiss the appeal.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The Court of Appeal did not reach the merits of the recommitment order. Counsel filed a brief raising no issues, Epps filed no supplemental brief, and the court held, consistent with Ben C. and People v. Taylor, that Wende/Anders independent review does not extend to MDO recommitment appeals, which are civil in nature. Dismissal where no arguable issue is identified is expressly permitted by Ben C. (40 Cal.4th at p. 544) and was followed in People v. Serrano. The court's procedural handling matches the controlling Supreme Court authority, and nothing in the opinion suggests the trial court's findings were deficient.

Authorities

relied: Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 — Wende/Anders independent review procedures do not apply to LPS Act civil commitment appeals; when counsel finds no arguable issue, counsel files a brief setting forth facts and law and informs the client of the right to file a supplemental brief, and the appellate court may dismiss the appeal if no arguable issue is raised.
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: People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 — Where Wende review is unavailable and appellant raises no arguable issue in a supplemental brief, the appeal may be dismissed as abandoned.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the procedure for independent appellate review of the record in a criminal defendant's first appeal of right when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel in a criminal appeal who finds the appeal frivolous must so advise the court and file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; the court then independently examines the record.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies Ben C., which is binding Supreme Court authority, and the directly on-point Taylor decision to hold that Wende/Anders review is unavailable in an MDO recommitment appeal, and it confirms that the Ben C. safeguards (informative brief, notice to appellant of right to file a supplemental brief) were satisfied before dismissing. The result is squarely supported by the cited authorities and the dismissal is the disposition Ben C. expressly permits.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 3/13/24 P. v. Epps 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, D082774

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE171653)

JEFFREY O’NEIL EPPS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carlos O. Armour, Judge. Appeal Dismissed.

Laura Beth Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 1998, Jeffrey O’Neil Epps pled guilty to the crime of robbery. (Pen.

Code,1 § 211.) He also admitted an allegation of a prior strike. (§ 667, subd. (a).) He was sentenced to state prison for nine years.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. In September 2003, Epps was admitted to a state hospital as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) pursuant to section 2962. Since that time, his commitment has been extended every year pursuant to sections 2970 and 2972. In April 2023, the District Attorney’s office filed a petition to extent Epps’s involuntary treatment another year. In June 2023, Epps and the People waived their respective rights to a jury trial. In August 2023, at the conclusion of Epps’s bench trial, the court found that Epps suffers from a severe mental disorder that is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment, and that he represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others by virtue of that severe mental disorder, and ordered that he be committed to a state hospital until August 2024. Epps filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION 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 the Supreme Court’s decision in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.), which held that the Wende/Anders independent review procedures do not apply to civil commitments pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). (Ben C. at p. 539.) Counsel also acknowledges that in People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, the Second District 2 considered whether the Wende/Anders procedures apply to MDO commitment cases and concluded they did not. 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, counsel has prepared a brief setting forth the facts and the law, and has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and the record on appeal. Counsel informed Epps of his right to file a supplemental brief. Our court has also informed Epps of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he declined to do so. 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 instead 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.

IRION, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

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