Opinion
D083356
04-16-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARLOS ROMERO, Defendant and Appellant.
Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. SCD253223 Runston G. Maino, Judge. Appeal Dismissed.
Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
IRION, J.
In 2015, Carlos Romero was found not guilty by reason of insanity of four counts of assault with a deadly weapon with great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, §§ 245 subds. (a)(1) &(c), 1192.7.) He was committed to a state hospital in March 2015 pursuant to section 1026. His maximum commitment date was set at January 2, 2024.
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
In August 2023, the District Attorney's office filed a petition to extend Romero's involuntary commitment for a period of two years. In December 2023, a jury found the petition true and the court extended Romero's commitment to January 2, 2026.
Romero filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal concerning the order continuing Romero's involuntary commitment and invites this court to conduct an independent review of the record in accord with Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.), People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304 (Taylor), and People v. Martinez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1226 (Martinez).
Romero was provided with a copy of the brief and informed of his right to file a supplemental brief. He has not timely responded. In Ben C., the Supreme Court held that independent review procedures set forth in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) do not apply to civil commitments pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 539.) In Taylor, the Second District considered whether the Wende/Anders procedures apply to mentally disordered commitment cases and concluded they did not. (Taylor, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 313.)
In Martinez, the Court of Appeal reviewed Ben C. and other relevant cases and held that "due process does not require an appellate court to conduct an independent review of the appellate record for possible issues in an appeal from an extension" of the civil commitment of an individual previously found not guilty by reason of insanity. (Martinez, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1230.)
We agree with the reasoning of Martinez as applied to this appeal. Because no reasonably arguable issues have been raised by counsel or appellant, we decline to exercise our Ben C. discretion to conduct an independent review of the record in this case pursuant to Anders/Wende or otherwise and dismiss the appeal. (Martinez, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1240.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. KELETY, J.