Opinion
A153259
08-15-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWARD CAGLE, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Napa County Super. Ct. No. CR137908)
Edward Cagle appeals from an order extending his commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, § 2970, 2972.) His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Because this review is not available in an appeal from an MDO extension order, we dismiss the appeal.
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
I. BACKGROUND
Given the posture of this case, we need not set forth the facts or procedural history in any detail. Appellant, who has been diagnosed with qualifying, severe mental disorders, including schizoaffective disorder bipolar type and schizophrenia, was involuntarily committed as an MDO. (§ 2962 et seq.) By order filed December 6, 2017, his commitment was extended following a jury trial, and he filed this appeal. Appellant's appointed counsel has submitted an opening brief stating that he has found no arguable appellate issues and asking this court to conduct an independent Anders/Wende review of the record. Counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date the opening brief was filed, but appellant has not done so.
II. DISCUSSION
An indigent criminal defendant is entitled to have the appellate court independently review the record when appointed counsel files a brief stating that he or she has found no arguable issues. (Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) This right to independent review does not extend to judgments that are civil in nature, even when those judgments may result in the deprivation of a liberty interest. (Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 535 (Ben C.) [Lanterman-Petris-Short conservatorship proceedings under Welf. & Inst.Code, § 5000 et seq.].)
In People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304 (Taylor), the court concluded that the Anders/Wende review procedures do not apply to an order extending an MDO commitment. (Taylor, at pp. 312-313; see also People v. Martinez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1231 [Anders/Wende procedures do not apply to an appeal from extension of civil commitment of person found not guilty by reason of insanity]; People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1425 [Wende procedures do not apply to an appeal from the denial of a petition for restoration of sanity filed under § 1026.2].) We find the reasoning of Taylor to be persuasive and follow it here.
Appointed counsel recognizes that an Anders/Wende review is not constitutionally compelled, but notes that this court may conduct such a review in its discretion. (See Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544, fn. 7.) We decline to do so.
III. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
/s/_________
REARDON, J. We concur: /s/_________
STREETER, ACTING P. J. /s/_________
SMITH, 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. --------