P. v. Snyder
Filed 4/22/13 P. v. Snyder 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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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. CARL JOHN SNYDER, Defendant and Appellant. | A137204 (Napa County Super. Ct. No. CR 128014) |
This is an
appeal from a judgment of the
Superior Court after a jury trial extending the commitment of defendant
pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.5.
His commitment now terminates November
23, 2014. His appellate
counsel has reviewed the file in this case and has determined there are no
meritorious issues to raise on appeal.
He has complied with the relevant case authorities, assuming
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and its progeny apply here. He has also notified defendant of his right
to file a supplemental brief, but Snyder has not done so. Upon independent review of the record, we
conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the
judgment.
Defendant
in 2006 was found not guilty by reason of insanity of the offense of felonious
umbrella) (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). He was committed to the state
hospital for a maximum term to expire March
7, 2010. In 2008, the
hospital recommended his release to an outpatient
program. The conditional release
program (CONREP) agreed and release was ordered by the court. In late 2011, the district attorney sought
revocation of Snyder’s outpatient status, contending defendant had escaped from
the CONREP outpatient facility. Snyder
later turned himself in to authorities.
His outpatient placement was revoked on September 20, 2011.
He was found to have a full-blown gambling addiction which triggered
dishonesty, anger, deception and manipulative behavior. His family support had become
uncooperative. His outpatient status was
revoked on January 9, 2012,
and Snyder was ordered committed to Napa
State Hospital.
On April 27, 2012, Napa
requested the district attorney file a petition to extend the commitment beyond
the maximum term. Because time was
tolled while Snyder was an outpatient, the term was to expire November 23, 2012.
On August 3, 2012, a petition was
filed. The public defender was appointed
to represent Snyder. On October 11, 2012, the trial court
found good cause to continue the trial at the prosecution’s request and without
objection by defense counsel. On October 24, 2012, the case was
continued on the motion of the court to October 26, 2012.
The trial commenced on October
29, 2012. All jury
instructions were adopted without objection by defense. After the jury verdict, the court extended
commitment.
Defendant
filed timely notice of his appeal on November
26, 2012, from a court order dated October 31, 2012.
This is an
appeal reviewing the extension of defendant’s commitment after being found not
guilty by reason of insanity. It has
been presented to us as a Wende appeal
and appropriately defendant’s counsel has certified he has reviewed the record
finding no issues to raise in the appeal.
Under Anders v. California (1967)
386 U.S. 738, and People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436, due process does not
require this court to conduct an independent review of an appeal from the
denial of a petition for restoration of sanity, where appellate counsel finds no arguable issue. “Anders/Wende
review is not required in an appeal from the denial of a petition for
restoration of competency.†(
1422, 1435.) Dobson followed the rationale of the California Supreme Court when
that court determined that Wende review
was not needed in an extension of an LPS conservatorship.
of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 537–539.)
In each instance, the extensions involve civil rather than criminal
proceedings, and there are numerous safeguards in place to avoid erroneous
results. (Dobson, supra, at p. 1437.)
Neither due
process nor equal protection safeguards mandate Wende-like review by this court of the instant case. We conclude that when appointed appellate
counsel files a Wende brief to an
appeal from a denial of petition for restoration of competency, the
applicable since it does not involve a criminal defendant’s first appeal as a
matter of right, and neither due process nor equal protection principles compel
extension of the Anders/Wende procedures
to this situation.
With these
principles in mind, we affirm the judgment.
>
__________________________________ Dondero, J. | |
We concur: __________________________________ Margulies, Acting P. J. __________________________________ Banke, J. |
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] See Lanterman-Petris-Short Act; Welfare &
Institutions Code section 5000 et seq.
