Filed 9/29/26 P. v. Cagle CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
A175542
v.
EDWARD LEROY CAGLE, (Napa County Superior
Court
Defendant and
Case No. CR137908)
Appellant.
After a two-day trial, a jury found appellant Edward Leroy
Cagle to be an offender with a mental health disorder (OMHD)
and the trial court extended his commitment to the Department
of State Hospitals from December 11, 2025 to December 11, 2026,
pursuant to Penal Code sections 2970 and 2972.1 Cagle’s counsel
filed an opening brief asking that this court conduct an
independent review of the record for arguable issues under People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel also informed
defendant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his
own behalf, but he declined to do so. Following what defendant
concedes is well established authority, we dismiss the appeal
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless
1
otherwise indicated.
1
because Wende procedures do not apply to post-conviction civil
commitment orders relating to OMHD defendants.2 (People v.
Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, 312 (Taylor).)
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to sections 2962, 2970, and 2972, the People filed
a petition to extend defendant’s civil commitment, alleging that
he continued to suffer from a severe mental disorder that
required treatment and that made him a substantial danger to
others. Trial on the petition commenced on November 19, 2025.
Dr. Francisco Veldarde, defendant’s treating psychiatrist,
met with defendant nine times between February 2025 and the
time of trial. Dr. Velarde testified that defendant suffered from
schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. Defendant displayed
symptoms such as “mood lability, irritability, agitation, pressured
speech, grandiosity, delusional thinking, reporting that he is
Jesus Christ, that he’s being targeted to [sic] having to carry the
cross, pressured speech, flight of ideas, disorganized thinking,
paranoia, fear that he’s being poisoned, and fear that his identity
will be stolen from him.” Dr. Velarde noted that defendant does
not believe that he has a mental health condition or that he
requires medication. Indeed, defendant told Dr. Velarde that he
2
OMHD defendants “were previously described as mentally
disordered offenders, or MDO’s. [Citation.] The Legislature
recently changed this terminology to ‘offender with a mental
health disorder.’ (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (d)(3); Stats. 2019,
ch 9, § 7.) In accordance with this change, we now refer to
extension proceedings under Penal Code section 2962 as OMHD
commitments.” (Conservatorship of Eric B. (2022) 12 Cal.5th
1085, 1095, fn. 3.)
2
will not voluntarily take medication and is only doing so because
of the existing involuntary medication order.
Dr. Velarde also characterized defendant as verbally
aggressive, noting that he would become “extraordinarily
agitated.” On one occasion when they were discussing the
possibility of introducing a new medication, defendant said “he
would have to ‘catch a case’ in order to leave the facility though
[sic] as to not take any medications.” When Dr. Velarde asked
defendant if he was referring to hurting someone, defendant said
that “he would do ‘what I have to do.’ ” Dr. Velarde further
stated that when defendant’s antipsychotic medication was
reduced to address certain side effects, there was a marked
increase in defendant’s paranoia, grandiosity, speaking of himself
as Jesus Christ, fear of poisoning, and irritability.
Dr. Robin Campbell, a consulting psychologist at Coalinga
State Hospital, is a forensic evaluator who assesses whether
patients continue to qualify for commitment as OMHDs under
sections 2970 and 2972. She testified that defendant suffers from
a qualifying severe mental health disorder, specifically
schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. According to Dr. Campbell,
even though defendant is taking medication, he still displays
symptoms including “hallucinations, delusions, [and]
disorganized thinking.” He also displays mood symptoms such as
mania, pressurized speech, and agitation. Dr. Campbell also
testified that defendant represents a substantial danger of
physical harm to others based upon his aggressive behavior in
the hospital, the fact that he only takes medication because he is
3
required to, not because he believes he needs it, and because at
some point he said he would kill someone if he was not taken off
of a particular medication. She opined that defendant’s risk of
violence would increase if he were released from the state
hospital into the community.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s counsel filed a Wende brief, requesting that we
independently review the record to determine whether it contains
any arguable issues for appeal. Counsel acknowledges, however,
the well-settled law that Wende procedures do not apply to orders
extending commitments for OMHDs. (Taylor, supra,
160 Cal.App.4th at p. 312 [review pursuant to Wende and Anders
v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 is not applicable to extensions of
post-conviction civil commitments under section 2972].) Counsel
asks us to exercise our discretion to undertake a Wende review,
“yet he offers no legitimate reason for us to do so.” (Taylor,
supra, at p. 313.) We decline the request.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
BROWN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
STREETER, J.
GOLDMAN, J.
People v. Cagle (A175542)
4