People v. Ryan CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D081952 · 2024-06-28 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. MH118915, M279225
Trial judge: Laura H. Parsky
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: other
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Joan K. Irion, Buchanan

Analysis

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

The trial court denied Ryan's motion to be found competent to stand trial and to dismiss the criminal charges, relying on expert reports indicating he was incompetent due to psychosis. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, finding no arguable issues for reversal after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to be found competent to stand trial and to dismiss criminal charges “We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The opinion is a Wende/Anders review where the court states it found no arguable issues. It does not explicitly state the standard of review (e.g., substantial evidence) or analyze the trial court's application of the law to the facts, merely affirming the result.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to independently review the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or explaining why none exist, and the court to independently review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the Wende/Anders protocol by stating that counsel filed a brief and the court independently reviewed the record. However, it is substantively thin as it provides no legal analysis or standard of review for the competency determination, merely stating no issues were found.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

After Ryan was found incompetent to stand trial on two misdemeanor DUI counts, the superior court denied his motion to be found competent and to dismiss the charges, relying on two expert reports (Drs. Jouhal and Carpio) diagnosing psychotic disorders and finding him unable to understand the proceedings or assist counsel. Appellate counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying two possible issues; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the order denying the motion to dismiss.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Finding that Ryan remained incompetent to stand trial (denial of motion to be found competent) “Whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s decision.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion does not articulate a standard, but a competency finding is ordinarily reviewed for substantial evidence. Two independent evaluators, Dr. Jouhal and Dr. Carpio, each diagnosed a psychotic disorder, documented paranoid and delusional statements and disorganized filings, and concluded Ryan could not rationally understand the charges or assist counsel; Ryan refused both interviews and the opinion identifies no contrary evidence. On that record the finding is supported.
Denial of Ryan's motion to dismiss the misdemeanor criminal charges “The order denying Ryan’s motion to dismiss is affirmed.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion gives no account of the legal framework governing dismissal for a misdemeanor defendant found incompetent (Pen. Code § 1370.01), the trial court's stated reasons, or the standard of review applied. It simply reports that no arguable issue was found. The result may well be defensible, but the opinion supplies too little to confirm the trial court correctly exercised whatever discretion it had.

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 arguable error in a criminal defendant's first appeal of right.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court then decides whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.
missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — A Wende opinion should set out the procedural history, the contentions raised, and the reasons they fail; the opinion here does not explain why the identified issues lack merit or address appealability.
missed: Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 — Independent Wende review is constitutionally required only in a criminal defendant's first appeal of right from a conviction; the court did not consider whether an appeal from a pretrial competency/dismissal order in a misdemeanor case triggers that duty or how it reached the Court of Appeal.
missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende procedures do not apply to appeals outside the first appeal of right from a conviction, though the court retains discretion to conduct independent review; the opinion does not explain the basis for applying Wende to this order.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The affirmance is defensible because two expert evaluations uniformly supported continued incompetence and nothing in the recited record points the other way. The opinion, however, never addresses appealability or appellate jurisdiction over an order in a misdemeanor case, does not explain whether Wende review was required for this type of order, and offers no analysis of the statutory framework governing dismissal of charges against an incompetent misdemeanor defendant.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/28/24 P. v. Ryan 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, D081952

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. MH118915, M279225) CHRIS STEWART RYAN, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura H. Parsky, Judge. Affirmed. Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Chris Stewart Ryan has been charged with two misdemeanor counts of driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (a); 23152, subd. (b)). He was found not competent to stand trial. Ryan later brought a motion to be found competent and to dismiss the criminal charges. The court denied the motion. Ryan filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Ryan the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. Appellate counsel provided a summary of the factual material considered by the court in finding Ryan still not competent to stand trial and denying the motion to dismiss. The facts of the underlying offense are not relevant to the resolution of this appeal. We will incorporate that summary here to provide background information. According to the competency report prepared by Sandeep Jouhal, M.D., filed October 18, 2022, on December 26, 2021, Ryan was allegedly involved in a collision with a sidewalk tree and his vehicle. When he was removed from the vehicle they detected a strong order of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and difficulty sitting on the curb. Ryan engaged in the field sobriety test but refused to participate in the alphabet test. Dr. Jouhal sought to interview Ryan, but Ryan declined to participate in the interview because he did not believe it would be beneficial to his case since he was going to plead not guilty. He did not appear to understand the doctor’s explanation of the benefits of participating and stated, “[T]here are people following me, . . . eye[s] on me, following me on my electronic devices. I don’t know where they are coming from. Last night they changed my playlist to shuffle and started playing songs they wanted me to hear.” He provided Dr. Jouhal with paperwork, which Dr. Jouhal characterized as demonstrating that Ryan did not have a rational understanding of the charges against him and the court’s proceeding.

2 Based upon this material and Ryan’s behavior at the interview, Dr. Jouhal indicated that his diagnostic impression of Ryan was “Psychosis Not Otherwise Specified F29.” He concluded that Ryan was not competent to stand trial both because of his “paranoid and delusional thinking” and because he lacked an understanding of the charges or the court system and would therefore be unable to assist his attorney. He recommended Ryan be referred to a psychiatrist in the community for a psychiatric evaluation because Ryan was facing misdemeanor charges. In a report filed on February 14, 2023, Alma Carpio, Psy.D. conducted an evaluation of Ryan’s competency to stand trial. Carpio based the report on her interview with Ryan, a review of two competency reports prepared by Dr. Jouhal, a review of the district attorney’s file, and documents provided by Ryan. At the interview, Ryan told Carpio he was not willing to participate in the interview, handed her an envelope with documents, and left. The documents included forms indicating that he was suing the People of the United States for an amount in excess of $31 trillion. He also indicated his desire to appeal the mental competency exam and provided additional “rambling and disorganized statements.” Carpio recorded a diagnostic impression of “unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder.” She further concluded based upon the information, and her review of Ryan’s behavior, that he was presently incompetent to stand trial and because he was facing misdemeanor charges, she recommended he be referred for mental health services. DISCUSSION As we have noted, counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in 3 compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified two possible issues for our consideration: 1. Whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s decision. 2. Whether the court erred in denying Ryan’s motion to dismiss the criminal case. We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Ryan on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Ryan’s motion to dismiss is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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