People v. C.G. CA4/2

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: September 11, 2024
• Docket: E082795
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 9/11/24 P. v. C.G. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, E082795

v. (Super.Ct.No. FELSB23000071)

C.G., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Kawika Smith,

Judge. Dismissed.

Paul R. Kraus, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant C.G. was convicted of robbery (Pen. Code1, §211) and

was sentenced to prison. The Board of Prison Terms (BPT) determined that she met the

criteria for being committed as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) and required her to

accept treatment as a condition of parole. Defendant filed a petition pursuant to section

2966 challenging the BPT’s determination that she be committed. The court found

defendant met the criteria of an MDO and ordered her to remain committed to the State

Department of Mental Health and continue receiving treatment.

Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), setting

forth a statement of the case and a statement of the facts, and advising that he has found

no arguable issues. Counsel argues that due process requires this court to undertake an

independent review of the appellate record to determine whether this appeal presents any

arguable issues. (Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) {AOB 8,

37-42} However, we have no obligation to independently review the record for error.

(People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, 312-314 (Taylor) [Wende and Anders

procedures do not apply in appeals from orders committing MDO’s]; see , People v.

Martinez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1236-1237; Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40

Cal.4th 529, 543-544 (Ben C.) [Wende procedures do not apply to

Lanterman- Petris- Short Act conservatorship proceeding].)

1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. She has

not filed one. Defendant asks us to exercise our discretion to retain the appeal

(See Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544, fn. 7), yet she offers no legitimate reason for us

to do so. Under the circumstances, we shall dismiss the appeal. (Taylor, supra, 160

Cal.App.4th at pp. 313-314.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORT

FIELDS J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

McKINSTER J.