Opinion
B326592
11-15-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GABRIEL VASQUEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
James M. Crawford, under appointment by Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Nos. BA509575, ZM075995 Francis B. Bennett, Judge. Dismissed.
James M. Crawford, under appointment by Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Respondent.
RUBIN, P. J.
Defendant Gabriel Vasquez filed a notice of appeal after the trial court sent him for a mental competence evaluation. We construe defendant's appeal as one from the trial court's subsequent order finding him incompetent to stand trial under Penal Code section 1368 and committing him to the Department of State Hospitals. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. (a) [listing the latter, but not the former, as an appealable order].) As best we can tell from the record, defendant remains committed, with his next court date of December 8, 2023.
Defendant's appointed counsel has filed a brief setting forth the facts of this case and asking this court to review the record to determine if there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of his counsel's opening brief. That time has lapsed, and he has filed no brief.
Our Supreme Court has not spoken directly on the issue of whether Wende review applies to Penal Code section 1368 incompetency commitment proceedings such as these. In Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, the court held that Wende review is not required for appeals in Lanterman-Petris-Short Act conservatorship proceedings. (Id. at pp. 538543.) People v. Blanchard (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1020, 10241025, extended the holding in Ben C. to certain incompetency commitment proceedings. Defendant's counsel urges that Blanchard was wrongly decided and is distinguishable from this case because Blanchard's Penal Code section 1368 commitment came after probation revocation proceedings had commenced. In contrast, the commitment here was before trial. Without reaching the issue presented in Blanchard, we have conducted an independent review of the record in this case.
Having reviewed the record, we agree with counsel that there are no arguable issues on appeal. The trial court's determination that defendant was not competent to stand trial was supported by substantial evidence in the form of an expert's report. The commitment ordered by the court is authorized by law and supported by CONREP's recommendation. Defendant was represented by able counsel.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
WE CONCUR: BAKER, J. KIM, J.