People v. Wilson

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRADLEY TERRANCE WILSON…

Court: Court of Appeal of California

Date published: Jun 29, 2009

A122358 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 29, 2009)

Opinion

A122358

6-29-2009

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRADLEY TERRANCE WILSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Not to be Published in Official Reports

Ruvolo

Appellant Bradley Terrance Wilson purports to appeal from the extension of his commitment to Napa State Hospital for an additional year, pursuant to Penal Code section 2970 (section 2970) (part of the Mentally Disordered Offender Act (MDOA), Pen. Code, § 2962 et seq.). This latest recommitment followed a court trial on March 19, 2007. The 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.

Appellants counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), and Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.).

In Ben C., the California Supreme Court concluded that Wende and Anders procedures are not mandated in an appeal of a judgment for conservatorship of the person under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). In People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304 (Taylor), the Second District Court of Appeal extended Ben C. to MDO (mentally disordered offender) proceedings. Like appellant here, in Taylor the defendant was ordered committed under the MDOA. (Id. at p. 308.) He filed an appeal and his counsel on appeal filed an opening brief that asked the court to conduct an independent review of the record under Wende. (Ibid.) The court declined the request because Wende review is required only when appointed counsel is representing an indigent criminal defendant in his first appeal as a matter of right. (Id. at p. 312.) Therefore, the court ruled that Wende review is not available for a civil commitment under the MDOA and dismissed the appeal. (Id. at pp. 312-313.) Appellants counsel acknowledges Taylor in her brief.

We decline to exercise our discretion to review the record for error. We find the reasoning in Taylor to be persuasive and follow it here.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is hereby dismissed.

We concur:

Reardon, J.

Sepulveda, J.