Opinion
H033273.
7-14-2009
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LORENZO ARTEAGA, Defendant and Appellant.
Not to be Published in Official Reports
Defendant Lorenzo Arteaga appeals from an order entered on August 6, 2008, sustaining his demurrer to a Penal Code section 2970/2972 petition to extend his commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). He also appeals from the trial courts August 8, 2008 order releasing him from custody.
All further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On appeal, appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. Defendant has submitted two supplemental briefs which we now consider pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal 4th 106. Finding no arguable issue on appeal we will affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 25, 1993, defendant was convicted of 11 counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14. His prison term and parole period were set to expire on May 16, 2005. On May 10, 2005, the Department of Corrections certified defendant as an MDO, and, on May 16, 2005, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a petition under section 2970 to have him committed. Defendant repeatedly sought dismissal of the petition on the ground of untimeliness, but his motions and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus were denied.
Even though there had been no trial on the original petition, the district attorney filed a petition on June 2, 2006, to extend defendants commitment. On February 5, 2007, the district attorney filed another petition to extend the commitment. Because none of the petitions had been adjudicated, the district attorney filed a motion to consolidate them for trial. The trial court granted the motion. Trial commenced on May 11, 2007, and on May 17, 2007, the jury found that defendant qualified as a mentally disordered offender. Thereafter, the trial court ordered defendant committed to Atascadero State Hospital for a period of one year and the defendant appealed. In an opinion filed on December 30, 2008, we reversed the commitment order, finding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the consolidated recommitment petitions and to commit the defendant.
The preceding recitation of facts is taken from our opinion in People v. Argeaga (Dec. 30, 2008, H031585) [nonpub. opn.].
People v. Arteaga, supra, H031585, [p. 3].
Two weeks later, on January 15, 2008, the District Attorney of Santa Clara County filed a new petition pursuant to sections 2970 and 2972 seeking to extend appellants commitment as a MDO. On July 23, 2008, defendant filed a demurrer to the petition and on August 6, 2008, the trial court sustained the demurrer. The trial court ordered the defendant transferred to Atascadero State Hospital to be processed and discharged. Thereafter on August 8, 2008, at a further hearing, the trial court ordered that defendant be released immediately. Defendant has filed an appeal from both of these orders.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, appellate counsel detailed the procedural history of this case, noting that defendant was the prevailing party in both of the orders from which he appeals. In requesting that we conduct our own review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, counsel did not provide a statement of facts because there was no evidentiary hearing held in this matter.
In response to our letter notifying defendant of his right to submit a supplemental brief, we have received two documents, one filed on April 9, 2009 and one filed on May 8, 2009. The April 9, 2009 documents, entitled "Appellants Opening Brief" consists of an assortment of documents. Pages 2-7 and 20-50 appear to be copies of the opening brief filed on December 19, 2005, in case number H012729, the appeal from defendants original 1993 conviction. The remainder of the supplemental brief appears to consist of various documents from the record below. This April 9, 2009 supplemental brief does not raise any arguments relevant or related to the instant appeal.
This opening brief was later stricken on February 7, 2006, at defendants request, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed for failure to file an opening brief.
The May 8, 2009 supplemental filing consists of two handwritten pages captioned, "Petition for Rehearing and Declaration of Lorenzo Arteaga — Exceptional Circumstance for Rehearing and for Oral Argument" and a document entitled "Notice of Sex Offender Registration Requirement." In the handwritten document, defendant states that he has "a constitutional and statutory right to be immediately released from ongoing false imprisonment . . . pending direct criminal appeal . . . ." Again, these documents are not relevant to the instant appeal. The appeal herein is from an order directing defendants immediate release because of the trial courts lack of jurisdiction. As far as we can tell from the record on appeal, defendant was released pursuant to that order. The sex offender registration documents, attached to his supplemental filing, were given to defendant at the August 8, 2008 hearing based on his original 1993 conviction. They are unrelated to the instant matter.
Subsequent records received by this court suggest that defendant is currently in custody on new charges. These new charges stem from an August 16, 2008 violation of section 290.015. In that case, defendant was committed pursuant to section 1368 as of June 10, 2009.
Pursuant to our obligation as set forth in People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal 4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and the defendants supplemental briefs. We conclude that defendant was the prevailing party in the orders from which he appeals and that as a result there are no arguable issue on appeal. Therefore, we need not seek further briefing on any issue raised in the supplemental briefs.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
PREMO, J.
ELIA, J.