P. v. Mathis
Filed 2/1/13 P. v. Mathis CA1/1
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
ONE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
HETTIE
DENISE MATHIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
A135519
(Napa
County Super.
Ct.
No.
CR113475)
On
March 25, 2004, defendant
Hettie Denise Mathis pleaded no contest to a felony charge of committing an assault
by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. She was sentenced to three years in
As
a condition of parole, she was required to undergo treatment as a Mentally
Disordered Offender (MDO) at the state hospital. On March
17, 2009, the Napa County District Attorney filed a petition to
extend defendant’s commitment. Defendant
consented to a one-year extension.
Subsequent petitions and stipulations between 2010 and 2011 resulted in
new extensions. On February 8, 2012, the district attorney filed
another petition to extend the commitment.
Defendant’s demurrer to the petition was denied. A jury found the allegations in the petition
true. The court ordered defendant’s MDO
commitment at the California Institution for Women extended to June 9, 2013. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Defendant’s
counsel has filed an opening brief
that sets forth the facts of the case and raises no
supplementary brief, but has not done so.
Because
of the nature of the proceeding and the appeal therefrom, we proceed according
to the rationale from Conservatorship of
Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544; People
v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1438–1439; and People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, 312. As those cases demonstrate, we are not
required to review the record for any arguable issues.
proceeding (Pen. Code, § 2972, subd. (a)), and not subject to a
review for the reasons explained in those cases.
Disposition
The
appeal is dismissed.
______________________
Marchiano, P.J.
We concur:
______________________
Dondero, J.
______________________
Banke, J.
Although not required to conduct a review, we did read the record of the
hearing on defendant’s demurrer and the trial including the testimony of
defendant’s treating psychologist, Dr. Richard Ettelson, defendant’s own
testimony about the history of her condition, and the jury instructions.
