Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Solano County Super. Ct. No. VC43333.
RUVOLO, P. J.
I.
Introduction
Bradley Terrance Wilson appeals from a judgment extending his commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) pursuant to Penal Code section 2970. Once again, his attorney has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.); People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) (see also Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738), in order to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. Appellant’s counsel represented in the opening brief that she wrote to appellant and advised him of the filing of a Ben C. brief, and his opportunity to file his own supplemental brief within 30 days after the filing of the opening brief. We have not received a supplemental brief from appellant.
All subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
See our prior opinion in A122358 (June 29, 2009 [nonpub.]), dismissing appellant’s appeal seeking discretionary review of his 2007 recommitment.
Because Wende review is still not available under these circumstances, we will dismiss the appeal.
II.
Facts and Procedural History
As we noted in our prior opinion in case number A122358, “[t]he commitment originally commenced in February 2002, after a jury found that appellant met the terms of section 2970. The underlying offense for which appellant was committed was a charge of making a terrorist threat (Pen. Code, § 422) to which appellant had pleaded no contest in 1997. Since his original section 2970 commitment, his commitment has been extended each year.”
At issue here is a subsequent petition to extend the commitment for an additional year, granted after a bench trial on February 18, 2010. Appellate counsel requests, in light of her inability to identify any arguable issue on appeal, that we review the record on appeal and determine whether there are any arguable issues, pursuant to Wende. We need not conduct such a review, because the Wende procedure is not available in this matter.
In People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304 (Taylor), the court held that Wende review is not available for a civil commitment order under the Mentally Disordered Offender Act (§ 2962 et seq.). (Taylor, supra, at pp. 312-313.) Taylor is consistent with other decisions holding that the right to independent review by the appellate court does not extend to judgments that are civil in nature, even when those judgments result in the deprivation of a liberty interest. (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 543-544 [no Wende review in Lanterman-Petris-Short conservatorship appeals]; In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 959 [no Wende review in appeals from orders affecting parental custody in juvenile dependency cases]; People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1425 [no Wende review of order denying outpatient status pursuant to petition to restore competency under § 1026.2].)
We decline to exercise our discretion to review the record for error. We find the reasoning of Taylor and those other decisions we cite to be persuasive, and we follow them here.
III.
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: REARDON, J., SEPULVEDA, J.