People v. R.M. CA4/2

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: June 26, 2024
• Docket: E082794
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 6/26/24 P. v. R.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E082794

v. (Super.Ct.No. FELSB23000057)

R.M., 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 for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 Defendant and appellant R.M. pled no contest to arson of an inhabited structure

(Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (b), count 1)1 and vandalism (§ 594, count 3). The court

sentenced defendant to three years of imprisonment.

Personnel at the Board of Parole Hearings determined that defendant met the

criteria for being committed as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). Defendant filed a

petition pursuant to section 2966 challenging the determination that she should be

committed. The court found defendant met the criteria of an MDO and ordered her to

remain in the Department of State Hospitals to continue receiving treatment.

Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d

436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738,2 setting forth a statement of the facts,

a statement of the case, and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the

evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant was subject to an extension of her

commitment under section 2966. We dismiss.

We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief.

Nevertheless, she has not filed one. Under these circumstances, we have no obligation to

1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code.

2 The court in People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, determined that Wende and Anders procedures do not apply in appeals from orders committing MDO’s. (Taylor, at pp. 312-314; see People v. Martinez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1240 [Wende review not applicable to appeals extending not guilty by reason of insanity commitments]; accord, People v. Luper (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1077, 1082; see also Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544 [Wende procedures do not apply to Lanterman-Petris-Short Act conservatorship proceedings]; People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 224-231 [Wende review not required in appeals from the denial of section 1172.6 petitions].) 2 independently review the record for error. (People v. Taylor, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at

pp. 312-314; People v. Martinez, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1240; People v. Luper,

supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at p. 1082; Conservatorship of Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544;

People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 224-231.) Rather, we dismiss the appeal.

(People v. Taylor, at pp. 313-314.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER Acting P. J.

We concur:

MILLER J.

MENETREZ J.