P. v. Turner











Filed 6/21/12 P. v. Turner CA1/5

>

>

>

>

>

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIVE




>

>THE PEOPLE, > Plaintiff and Respondent, >v. >THOMAS TURNER, > Defendant and Appellant.

A133567 (>Solano> County Super. >Ct.> No. FC23583)

Thomas
Turner appeals from an order extending his commitment as a mentally disordered
offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, §§ 2970,
2972.)href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] His counsel on appeal has filed an href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">opening brief asking this court to
conduct an independent review of the
record under Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and >People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (>Wende).
Because this review is not available in an appeal from an MDO extension
order, we dismiss the appeal.

I.
BACKGROUND

Given
the posture of this case, we need not set forth the facts or procedural history
in any detail. Suffice it to say that in
August 1987, appellant kidnapped a three-month-old baby girl from her home,
brutally assaulted her, and abandoned her in a field. He received a 26-year prison term after
pleading no contest to residential burglary and forcible lewd conduct on a
child under 14 years of age. (§§
459/460, 288, subd. (b).)

Appellant,
who has been diagnosed with sexual sadism and pedophilia, was involuntarily
committed as an MDO. (§ 2962 et
seq.). By order filed October 26, 2011, his commitment was
extended following a jury trial, and he filed this appeal.href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2] Appellant’s appointed counsel has submitted
an opening brief stating that he has found no arguable appellate issues and
asking this court to conduct an independent Anders/Wende
review of the record. Counsel advised
appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the
date the opening brief was filed, but appellant has not done so.

II.
DISCUSSION

An
indigent criminal defendant is entitled to have the appellate court
independently review the record when appointed counsel files a brief stating
that he or she has found no arguable
issues. (Anders, supra,> 386 U.S.
738; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) This
right to independent review does not extend to judgments that are civil in
nature, even when those judgments may result in the deprivation of a liberty
interest. (Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (>Ben C.) [Lanterman–Petris–Short conservatorship
proceedings under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5350 et seq.].)

In
People v. Taylor (2008) 160
Cal.App.4th 304 (Taylor),
the court concluded that the Anders/Wende
review procedures do not apply to an order extending an MDO commitment. (Taylor,
at pp. 312–313; see also People v. Dobson
(2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422 [Wende
procedures do not apply to an appeal from the denial of a petition for
restoration of sanity filed under § 1026.2].)
We find the reasoning of Taylor to be persuasive and follow it here.


Appointed
counsel recognizes that an Anders/Wende
review is not constitutionally compelled, but notes that this court may conduct
such a review in its discretion. (See >Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544, fn. 7.) We decline to do so.

III. DISPOSITION

The
appeal is dismissed.







NEEDHAM,
J.





We concur.







JONES, P. J.







BRUINIERS, J.