Opinion
A130906
11-10-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ISMAEL JORDAN, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 108543)
Ismael Jordan appeals from an order denying his petition for conditional release from Napa State Hospital. (Pen. Code, § 1026.2.) His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief pursuant to Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.). Following the procedures set forth in that case, we will dismiss the appeal.
All further section references are to the Penal Code.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We need not describe appellant's crimes at length given the nature of the brief that has been filed. It should suffice to say that in May 1982, appellant escaped from San Francisco General Hospital's psychiatric ward and, within 45 minutes, had murdered a woman, sexually assaulted another, and seriously injured two others.
This court addressed other aspects of appellant's crime in a prior unpublished opinion. (See People v. Jordan (Jan. 4, 2005, A103537) [nonpub opn.].) As we stated in that opinion, appellant's crimes were particularly brutal. Appellant "first ran from the hospital to a park, removed his clothes, and attacked a woman as she walked her dog. (As he would later recall, he pulled her hair, told her '[G]ive me head,' and probably called her a 'fucking bitch.') He then ran to a nearby house, kicked in the front door, stabbed an 80-year-old semi-invalid with a knife from her kitchen, and hit her with her walker. Feeling an 'incredible rage,' he 'took her face apart' and removed her eyes from their sockets. Jordan ran outside and eluded a police officer, who had drawn his gun and sprayed him with mace. He next attacked a woman who was taking her 10-year-old granddaughter to a nearby nuns' residence, stabbing her in the neck and face. Lastly, he beat a woman in the face with both of his fists, pulled down her pants, 'cutting her butt up . . . [and causing] her to have a bowel movement.' He left her blind in one eye and in need of a colostomy. After he attacked and evaded additional police officers, it took eight officers to subdue him."
Based on this incident, appellant pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to several criminal counts including murder (§ 187), assault with intent to commit forcible oral copulation (§ 220), attempted murder (§§ 664/187), and sexual penetration with a foreign object. (§ 289, subd. (a).) The trial court found appellant was insane when he perpetrated the offenses and committed him for a maximum term of 49 years to life.
In July 2009, appellant filed a petition seeking conditional release under section 1026.2, subdivision (e). The trial court conducted a lengthy hearing on appellant's request at which several doctors and mental health specialists testified that appellant could not be safely released into the community. Based on that testimony, the court denied appellant's petition ruling he failed to prove that he could be released safely.
II. DISCUSSION
An indigent criminal defendant has the right to have an appellate court independently review the record when appointed counsel files a brief indicating that he or she has found no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) But this right to independent review does not extend to judgments that are civil in nature, even when those judgments may result in the deprivation of a liberty interest. (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 536-544.) In People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1427-1439, the court followed Ben C. and ruled that Wende procedures do not apply to appeals from the denial of a petition for restoration of sanity filed pursuant to section 1026.2. Fashioning a procedure similar to that used in Ben C., the Dobson court ruled that when appellate counsel files an opening brief that raises no issues, the court should dismiss the appeal. (Dobson, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1438-1439.) We find Dobson persuasive and will follow it here.
Appellant asks this court to review the record voluntarily. We decline to do so.
Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.
Counsel informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to exercise that right.
--------
III. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
________________
Jones, P.J.
We concur:
_______________
Simons, J.
__________________
Needham, J.