P. v. Woods
Filed 1/22/13 P.
v. Woods CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DENO WOODIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
D061649
(Super. Ct. No.
SCD123601)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, Gale E. Kaneshiro, Judge. Affirmed.
In
June 2004, Deno Eugene Woodis was found to be a mentally disordered offender
(MDO). He was committed to a state
hospital (Pen. Code, § 2962). Each
year thereafter, through 2011, Woodis was again committed as an MDO (Pen. Code,
§§ 2970 & 2972).
In
January 2012, the District Attorney again petitioned the court to commit Woodis
as an MDO. Following a court trial,
Woodis was committed as an MDO for an additional year.
Prior
to trial, Woodis brought a motion to replace counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). The motion was
heard and denied by the trial court.
Counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to
Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and
(Anders) raising possible, but not
arguable issues.
title="">[1] We offered Woodis the opportunity to file his
own brief on appeal but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Woodis
has been previously convicted of child
molestation. There had been other
instances of child molestation. Mental
health experts who testified at trial concluded that Woodis suffered from two
serious MDO qualifying mental disorders.
The disorders included schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type and
pedophilia, nonexclusive. They found the
disorders were not in remission. Each of
the experts found that Woodis presented a danger if released.
Woodis
testified on his own behalf. He
testified he had benefitted from treatment and that he would never lay a finger
on a child again. Woodis also testified
he had a release plan that included living in Houston, Texas.
DISCUSSION
As
we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating he is
unable to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the
record for error as mandated by Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738,
the brief identifies the following possible, but not arguable issues:
1. Whether the evidence is sufficient to support
the trial court's finding that Woodis is a MDO; and
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying the
We
have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, 386 U.S. 738, and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate
issues. Competent counsel has
represented Woodis on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL,
P. J.
IRION,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Appellate counsel has
raised the question of whether the Wende
procedure applies to MDO proceedings since it does not apply to conservatorship
proceedings under In re Conservatorship
of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529.
We will assume, for purposes of this review, that the
MDO commitment follows a criminal conviction.
In any event we have reviewed the entire record in this case.
