People v. E.L. CA4/2

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: October 25, 2024
• Docket: E082802
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 10/25/24 P. v. E.L. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E082802

v. (Super.Ct.No. FELSB23000077)

E.L., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

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

Judge. Dismissed.

John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Ervin Longstreet appeals from a trial court’s order

extending for two years his commitment to a state hospital under Penal Code1 section

1026.5, subdivision (b). We dismiss the appeal.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) but

found not guilty by reason of insanity. He was committed to Patton State Hospital, but

later transferred to Sylmar Health and Rehabilitation Center (Sylmar), with a term of

commitment to expire on November 5, 2023.

On June 29, 2023, a petition was filed to extend defendant’s commitment,

pursuant to section 1026.5, subdivision (b). Defendant’s primary therapist at Sylmar

opined that, without appropriate supervision, defendant continued to present significant

danger to others due to his mental disorder. A jury found the petition true, and the court

extended defendant’s commitment to November 5, 2025.

ANALYSIS

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. His counsel filed a brief

summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel requested that we exercise our

discretion to independently review the record on appeal under the authority of People v.

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. He did not

identify an arguable issue but generally directed our attention to “whether there was

1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 sufficient evidence to sustain the petition to extend [defendant’s] commitment.” This

court advised defendant he had 30 days to file a personal supplemental brief. He has not

filed one.

Wende procedures do not apply to appeals from extensions of civil commitments

of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity. (People v. Martinez (2016) 246

Cal.App.4th 1226, 1230, 1239-1240; accord, People v. Luper (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th

1077, 1082-1083.) Although an appellate court may retain an appeal

where Wende review is not mandatory (Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529,

544, fn. 7), the circumstances here do not warrant such a course of action. We shall

accordingly dismiss the appeal.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON Acting P. J.

RAPHAEL J.