Opinion
D074054
11-27-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HADEER SHAMOUN, Defendant and Appellant.
Eric R. Larson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. ECR11141) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles G. Rogers, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Eric R. Larson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Hadeer Shamoun appeals from an order denying his application for restoration of sanity pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.2. In 1995, Shamoun was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) following a criminal trial, resulting in his commitment to a state hospital. Almost two decades later, Shamoun was discharged from the hospital and placed under community supervision on an outpatient basis. He subsequently applied for restoration of his sanity to be released from government supervision, but the trial court denied his application. He now appeals from that order.
Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
On appeal, Shamoun's appointed counsel raises no arguable issues and acknowledges that the 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 this appeal. We offered Shamoun the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal and, although he has responded, he presents no arguable issues. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 1995, Shamoun committed four counts of arson of an inhabited structure (§ 451, subd. (b)). The trial court found Shamoun not guilty by reason of insanity, and, in 1996, committed him to a state hospital. The court entered an order in 2013 discharging Shamoun from the hospital and placing him under community supervision on an outpatient basis in a conditional release program (CONREP).
In 2016, Shamoun applied for restoration of his sanity pursuant to section 1026.2, but the court denied the application. On subsequent appeal, this court reversed the order denying Shamoun's application on the basis of an evidentiary error and remanded for a new trial on Shamoun's application for restoration of sanity. (People v. Shamoun (Jan. 26, 2018, D071361) [nonpub. opn.].)
However, during the pendency of the appeal, the trial court revoked Shamoun's outpatient status. Recognizing that an application for restoration of sanity can only be granted if the applicant is currently on outpatient status, the court found it had no statutory authority to grant the application and denied it as moot. Shamoun appeals from that order.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Shamoun on appeal. His counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. He informed this court that he found no arguable issues and set out the applicable facts and the law. We invited Shamoun to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf and he has done so.
Counsel notes the Supreme Court's decision in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.), which held that the Anders/Wende independent review procedures do not apply to civil commitments pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 5000 et seq.). (Ben C., supra, at p. 539.) In People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, the court relied on Ben C. and held that Anders/Wende review is not required in an appeal from an order denying an application for restoration of sanity pursuant to section 1026.2 filed by an NGI committee. (Id. at pp. 1435-1436.)
Dobson directly addresses the situation present here and, as counsel acknowledges, this appeal is not subject to Anders/Wende review. Appointed counsel followed the procedures outlined in Ben C. by filing a brief informing the court that he found no arguable issues and setting out the applicable facts and the law. (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544.) Shamoun was provided with a copy of the brief and informed of his right to file a supplemental brief. Shamoun elected to do so, but his letter brief raises no arguable issues regarding the trial court's ruling. Because no reasonably arguable issues have been raised by counsel or appellant, we dismiss the appeal. (Dobson, supra, at p. 1439.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
McCONNELL, P. J. WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
HALLER, J.