P. v. Nguyen
Filed 8/14/09 P. v. Nguyen CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TUYEN DINH NGUYEN, Defendant and Appellant. | H033600 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC781824) |
A first amended complaint charged defendant Tuyen Dinh Nguyen with one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1).)[1] The complaint also alleged that in the commission of the offense, defendant had personally used a knife. ( 667, 1192.7.)
On October 20, 2008, defendants counsel declared her doubt, pursuant to section 1368, subdivision (b), of defendants mental competency. The trial court suspended criminal proceedings and appointed John M. Greene, M.D., to examine defendant. Dr. Greene examined defendant with the assistance of a Vietnamese interpreter, as defendant spoke primarily Vietnamese. Dr. Greene submitted a report, concluding that defendant is currently unable to assist his counsel on the conduct of a defense in a rational manner, and he is currently unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings against him.
At a hearing on November 12, 2008, the trial court received Dr. Greenes report. The prosecutor did not challenge Dr. Greenes conclusions. Based upon the doctors report, the trial court found defendant to be mentally incompetent and referred him to the South Bay Conditional Release Program for a treatment recommendation. Since the finding of incompetency was made before the preliminary examination, there are no facts in the record relating to the criminal charges other than those alleged in the complaint.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.
We have reviewed the whole record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
Premo, J.
WE CONCUR:
Rushing, P.J.
Elia, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Further code references are to the Penal Code.
