From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Burgan

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Apr 8, 2009
No. F055712 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2009)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County No. FP3588A, Arthur E. Wallace, Judge.

Rudolph Kraft III, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION

THE COURT

Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Hill, J.

Appellant Daniel Burgan appeals the order extending his state hospital commitment for an additional year pursuant to the Mentally Disordered Offender Act (MDOA) (Pen. Code, §§ 2970, 2972). Appellant’s appointed counsel is unable to identify any specific issues on appeal. Citing People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel asks that we independently review the record to determine whether there are any arguable appellate issues. Counsel has discussed the appeal with appellant and advised him he may file a supplemental brief.

In Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.), the California Supreme Court concluded that Wende and Anders procedures do not apply to conservatorship proceedings under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). Subsequently, the Second District Court of Appeal concluded that under the rationale of Ben C., the Anders/Wende review procedures do not apply to post-conviction commitments under the MDOA. (People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, 312.) We find the Taylor reasoning persuasive and apply it here.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion in a nonpublished opinion People v. Taylor (Jan. 13, 2009, F056109).

Appellant filed a letter brief raising three issues. He contends his trial counsel coerced him into having a court trial rather than a jury trial, and “denied me the right to subpoena my witness’s [sic] telling me that a subp[oe]na only makes the person show up in the [a]udience [and] does not force them to testify which is a lie.” Further, his mother told him the deputy district attorney used scare tactics to keep her from testifying, “threatening to use her past against her [and] [d]iscredit her.” We have reviewed the briefs submitted by appellant and his appointed counsel. We decline to exercise our discretion to review the record for error. Competent counsel has represented appellant in this appeal and appellant’s claims are either unsupported by or refuted in the record.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.


Summaries of

People v. Burgan

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Apr 8, 2009
No. F055712 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Burgan

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL ELVIS BURGAN, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Apr 8, 2009

Citations

No. F055712 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2009)