Filed 6/30/26 P. v. Tucker CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A175828
v.
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct.
SAMUEL HORACE TUCKER, Nos. 04-24-02024, 02-25-01141,
Defendant and Appellant. 04-25-01592, 01-25-03465)
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Between October 2024 and October 2025, the Contra Costa County
District Attorney filed four complaints alleging Samuel Horace Tucker
committed various offenses — two counts of misdemeanor shoplifting (Pen.
Code, § 459.5, undesignated statutory references are to this code);
misdemeanor violations of possession of controlled substance (Health & Saf.
Code, § 11377); two counts of possession of smoking device (Health & Saf.
Code, § 11364); felony robbery (§ 211); and misdemeanor violations of theft
with two or more convictions (§ 666.1). In one of the cases, Tucker allegedly
took lemonade and other items from a store without paying. An employee
1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin.,
§ 8.1), reciting only those facts necessary to do so. (People v. Garcia (2002)
97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.)
1
confronted Tucker, who then pushed and spit on the employee, and yelled
slurs.2
After defense counsel expressed a doubt regarding Tucker’s competence
to stand trial, the trial court suspended criminal proceedings and appointed a
psychologist to evaluate his competency and medical decision-making
capacity for his four open cases. The psychologist determined Tucker was not
competent to stand trial, and the court agreed. The court committed him to
the State Department of State Hospitals for competency restoration in a
locked forensic setting based on the placement recommendation from a
conditional release program. (§ 1370.) The court also found Tucker lacked
the capacity to make decisions regarding antipsychotic medication and
authorized its administration on an involuntary basis pursuant to the
psychologist’s recommendation. Tucker appealed.
Tucker’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) — when counsel files a brief summarizing the
facts and proceedings but raising no issues, appellate court reviews the entire
record to determine any arguable issues — and People v. Blanchard (2019)
43 Cal.App.5th 1020 (Blanchard) — no Wende review in appeals from an
involuntary commitment order in competency proceedings — raising no
issues and asking this court to review the record to assess whether there are
any arguable issues for appeal. (Wende, at pp. 441–442; Blanchard,
at p. 1025.) Though Tucker was notified of his right to file a supplemental
brief, he has not done so. (Blanchard, at p. 1026; Conservatorship of Ben C.
(2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544 & fn. 6 [noting appellate counsel in
conservatorship proceedings should inform the court they found no arguable
2 The record does not contain detailed information regarding Tucker’s
remaining three cases.
2
issues to be pursued on appeal, file a brief identifying applicable facts and
law, and notify conservatee of the right to file a supplemental brief].) The
brief filed by Tucker’s counsel provides an adequate basis to dismiss his
appeal. We decline to exercise our discretion to retain the appeal and instead
dismiss it on our own motion. (Blanchard, at pp. 1025–1026.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
3
_________________________
RODRÍGUEZ, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
FUJISAKI, Acting P. J.
_________________________
PETROU, J.
A175828; People v. Tucker
4