Opinion
A151595
06-12-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEREMY CASEY WHITLOCK, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR204755) MEMORANDUM OPINION
We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1(1), (3).
Jeremy Whitlock appeals from an order extending his commitment to a state hospital where he was placed after he was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) of battery on a non-confined person by a prisoner. (Pen. Code, § 4501.5.)
Whitlock's appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief that does not assert any claim of error (a no-issue brief). Whitlock was served with a copy of the no-issue brief and notified of his right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he declined to do so. In light of these circumstances, Whitlock's appellate counsel requests that this court review the record independently to determine whether there is any issue on appeal pursuant to procedures established in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
Whitlock is not entitled to Anders/Wende review in an appeal from an order extending his NGI civil commitment. (People v. Martinez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1226 (Martinez).) Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as abandoned.
DISCUSSION
An appellate court must conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to Anders/Wende in a criminal defendant's first appeal as of right if appointed appellate counsel represents he or she has found no arguable issues. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 982-983 (Sade C.); Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 536 (Ben C.).) However, California courts have consistently declined to conduct an Anders/Wende review in other types of appeals. (Sade C. [juvenile dependency appeal]; Ben C. [appeal from imposition of conservatorship under Lanterman-Petris-Short Act]; People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, 308 [appeal from civil commitment under Mentally Disordered Offender Act]; People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1425 [appeal from denial of petition for restoration of competency].)
In Martinez, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at page 1230, the Fourth District Court of Appeal refused to conduct an independent review of the appellate record for possible issues in an appeal from an extension of an NGI civil commitment. Applying the authority that we have cited above, the Martinez court held that due process does not require the adoption of Anders/Wende procedures in appeals of this nature. (Id. at p. 1240.) Whitlock's appointed appellate counsel does not question the holding or reasoning of Martinez, or any of the cases supporting that decision. Instead, she requests that this court independently review the record notwithstanding the fact we have no obligation to do so. We deny this request.
Alternatively, Whitlock's appellate counsel contends Whitlock is entitled to "the level of review prescribed . . . in Ben C., including affording [Whitlock] the opportunity to file a supplemental brief." Ben C. held that Anders/Wende procedures do not apply in an appeal from the imposition of a conservatorship under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (the LPSA). (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 535.) The court also approved the following procedure for resolving an appeal in a LPSA case when appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues: appointed counsel files a brief outlining the pertinent facts and law; appellant receives a copy of the brief and the opportunity to file a supplemental brief; and if no issue is raised, the court dismisses the appeal as abandoned. (Id. at p. 544 & fns. 6, 7.)
In Martinez, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th 1226, the Court of Appeal followed the procedure approved in Ben C. before dismissing an appeal from an extension of a NGI civil confinement order as abandoned. So too here, Whitlock's appointed counsel filed a no-issue brief that outlines the pertinent facts and law, and Whitlock declined the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. Therefore, Whitlock's appeal is dismissed as abandoned.
/s/_________
SMITH, J. We concur: /s/_________
STREETER, Acting P. J. /s/_________
REARDON, J.
Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------