From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. R.M.

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Jun 26, 2024
No. E082794 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 26, 2024)

Opinion

E082794

06-26-2024

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.M., Defendant and Appellant.

John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FELSB23000057. Kawika Smith, Judge. Dismissed.

John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

MCKINSTER ACTING P. J.

Defendant and appellant R.M. pled no contest to arson of an inhabited structure (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (b), count 1) and vandalism (§ 594, count 3). The court sentenced defendant to three years of imprisonment.

All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code.

Personnel at the Board of Parole Hearings determined that defendant met the criteria for being committed as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). Defendant filed a petition pursuant to section 2966 challenging the determination that she should be committed. The court found defendant met the criteria of an MDO and ordered her to remain in the Department of State Hospitals to continue receiving treatment.

Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the facts, a statement of the case, and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant was subject to an extension of her commitment under section 2966. We dismiss.

The court in People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, determined that Wende and Anders procedures do not apply in appeals from orders committing MDO's. (Taylor, at pp. 312-314; see People v. Martinez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1240 [Wende review not applicable to appeals extending not guilty by reason of insanity commitments]; accord, People v. Luper (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1077, 1082; see also Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544 [Wende procedures do not apply to Lanterman-Petris-Short Act conservatorship proceedings]; People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 224-231 [Wende review not required in appeals from the denial of section 1172.6 petitions].)

We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. Nevertheless, she has not filed one. Under these circumstances, we have no obligation to independently review the record for error. (People v. Taylor, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at pp. 312-314; People v. Martinez, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1240; People v. Luper, supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at p. 1082; Conservatorship of Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544; People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 224-231.) Rather, we dismiss the appeal. (People v. Taylor, at pp. 313-314.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

We concur: MILLER J., MENETREZ J.


Summaries of

People v. R.M.

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Jun 26, 2024
No. E082794 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 26, 2024)
Case details for

People v. R.M.

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.M., Defendant and Appellant.

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

Date published: Jun 26, 2024

Citations

No. E082794 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 26, 2024)