Opinion
E068257
11-14-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SEAN GREENSHIELDS, Defendant and Appellant.
Stephen M. Hinkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. FELJS1600079) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Lorenzo R. Balderrama, Judge. Dismissed. Stephen M. Hinkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The San Diego County District Attorney filed a petition on May 2, 2016, to extend the involuntary commitment of defendant and appellant Sean Greenshields as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) pursuant to Penal Code section 2970.
A bench trial was held on the petition on March 16, 2017. The trial court took the matter under submission. On April 26, 2017, the trial court determined that defendant continued to qualify as an MDO; defendant's involuntary confinement was extended.
On April 27, 2017, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
B. FACTUAL HISTORY
The evidence presented at trial consisted of medical records submitted as exhibit to the court. In an annual nursing assessment/evaluation from the Department of State Hospitals dated May 16, 2016, it was reported that defendant "has been diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder by unit psychiatrist." Defendant denied having any mental illness, and claimed the medications he was given were toxic. Defendant believed that if he stopped taking the medications he would get healthy. He also felt that he was "a victim of the state," and had been "threatened by the staff."
In a progress report prepared on October 13, 2016, it was noted that "due to a mental defect, disease, or disorder, the patient remains a substantial danger to the health and safety of others." The report detailed numerous incidents of aggressive behavior by defendant.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below and drawing this court's attention to the applicable law on sufficiency of the evidence in MDO proceedings. Counsel presents no actual argument for reversal and requests this court to review the commitment proceedings in accord with People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.
In making this request, counsel notes that in People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, the Second District Court of Appeal considered whether the Wende/Anders procedures were applicable to MDO commitment cases and concluded they were not. Counsel also acknowledges that in In re Conservatorship of Ben. C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, the California Supreme Court held that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 5000 et seq.) conservatorship proceedings are not subject to Wende/Anders review. (Ben C., at p. 535.) We agree with Taylor, supra, and decline to apply Wende/Anders procedures to this MDO case.
Because defendant has failed to raise an arguable issue on appeal from an order of recommitment, we decline to retain this case, as is permitted by Ben C., and dismiss the appeal. (Ben. C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544; People v. Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 501.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J. We concur: McKINSTER
Acting P. J. CODRINGTON
J.