Opinion
A156768
10-09-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GUY LEE VALLES, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 2-328478-3)
Defendant Guy Lee Valles appeals an order committing him to the Department of State Hospitals for up to two years based on a finding under Penal Code section 1368 et seq. that he is incompetent to stand trial on a criminal charge. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the relevant law and facts but raising no specific issue. Counsel asks this court to review the record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) or, if we conclude that Wende does not require independent review in an appeal from an order of this nature, to nonetheless exercise our discretion to retain the appeal and independently review the record. (See Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544 (Ben C.) [holding Wende review unnecessary in appeal from conservatorship order]; id. at pp. 555-556 (dis. opn. of George, C.J.) [even if Constitution does not require independent review, Court of Appeal retains discretion to review record independently].) Counsel served the brief on defendant and notified him of his right to personally file a supplemental brief within 30 days. That time has passed, and defendant has not done so.
Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. --------
In September 2018, the district attorney filed a complaint that charged defendant with one count of attempted murder (§ 187, subd. (a); § 664) and that alleged facts to support sentencing enhancements for personally using a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), personally inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and having a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subds. (a)(1), (d), (e); § 1170.12, subds. (b)-(c)).
Shortly after the complaint was filed, defense counsel declared a doubt as to defendant's mental competence to stand trial. The court suspended criminal proceedings pending a competency determination and appointed Dr. Shoko Kokubun to evaluate defendant. (§ 1368, subds. (b)-(c); § 1369, subd. (a).) In January 2019, the parties agreed to submit the question of competency on Dr. Kokubun's report. The report finds that defendant suffers from an unspecified schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorder that would prevent him from understanding the proceedings in a trial or rationally assisting his counsel.
The court found defendant incompetent to stand trial and referred the case to the conditional release program for a placement recommendation. In February 2019, based on the program's report, the court ordered defendant committed to the Department of State Hospitals for a maximum term of two years, with 139 days of actual credit. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
If counsel appointed for an indigent defendant pursuing his first appeal in a criminal case files a brief indicating that counsel can find no arguable issues to raise, the defendant has a constitutional right to have the court review the record independently to ensure that it indeed presents no arguable issue. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 739, 744; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 535.) This right to independent review does not extend to judgments that are civil in nature, even if the judgment results in the deprivation of one's liberty. Courts have thus found no right to Wende review in appeals from an order under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.) establishing a civil conservatorship (Ben C., supra, at pp. 535, 537, 544), an order in a juvenile dependency proceeding affecting parental rights (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 959), an order declaring a convicted person a mentally disordered offender (People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, 308), and an order in a proceeding under section 1026.2 denying outpatient placement to a person who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity and had later petitioned for an order declaring his sanity restored (People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1425).
The order declaring Valles incompetent to stand trial is a judgment in a civil special proceeding. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 807 [" 'A proceeding to determine the mental competence of a criminal defendant to stand trial pursuant to . . . section 1368 is a special proceeding civil in nature.' "]; accord, People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 131; People v. Masterson (1994) 8 Cal.4th 965, 969-970.) The order is similar in kind to the orders noted above and is not subject to mandatory Wende review.
Many procedures protect defendants against unwarranted commitments, including ongoing supervision by the trial court. (§ 1368 et seq.) The court's ongoing supervision provides defendant "a more immediate avenue for modification than that afforded by the more cumbersome appellate review." (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 543.)
Counsel having advised defendant that he could personally file a supplemental brief to raise any issues that he might want to call to this court's attention, and defendant having failed to do so, we decline to exercise our discretion to review the record independently.
The appeal is dismissed.
POLLAK, P. J. WE CONCUR: STREETER, J.
TUCHER, J.