P. v. Curtis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 6/21/13  P. v. Curtis CA3

 

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

 

 

 

 

 

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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT

(Sutter)

----

 

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,                           Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   CHERRIE LYNN CURTIS,                           Defendant and Appellant.

C071715   (Super. Ct. Nos. CRF-02-2410, CRF-02-2780, CRF-02-2892)

 

 

 

 

            name="_BA_ScanRange">Defendant Cherrie Lynn Curtis was committed to the state
mental hospital pursuant to  ADDIN
BA xc <@st> xl 23 s FKMRCT000001 l "Penal Code section
1026" Penal Code section 1026href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] in 2003 after the trial court found her not
guilty by reason of insanity to the criminal charges
of five counts of resisting an officer by force ( ADDIN BA xc <@osdv> xl 4 s
FKMRCT000008 xpl 1 l "§ 69" § 69), two counts of misdemeanor href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">battery
(
ADDIN BA xc <@osdv> xl 5 s FKMRCT000009 xpl 1 l
"§ 242" § 242), and one count of href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">brandishing
a deadly weapon, a misdemeanor ( ADDIN BA xc <@osdv> xl 19 s
FKMRCT000010 xpl 1 l "§ 417, subd. (a)(1)" § 417, subd. (a)(1)). 

            On August 30, 2011, the People filed a petition to extend
defendant’s commitment pursuant to  ADDIN
BA xc <@osdv> xl 14 s FKMRCT000011 l "section 1026.5" section 1026.5.  Following a court trial, the trial court
granted the motion and continued defendant’s commitment to the state mental
hospital. 

            We appointed href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">counsel
to represent appellant on appeal.  Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth
the facts of the case, raising no issues, and requesting this court review the
record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.  (See  ADDIN
BA xc <@cs> xl 36 s FKMRCT000002 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l ">People v. Wende(1979) 25
Cal.3d 436" People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( ADDIN BA xc <@$cs> xl 5 s
FKMRCT000002 xpl 2 Wende).)  Appellant was advised by counsel of the right
to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the
opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from
appellant.

            If appointed counsel in a criminal
defendant’s first appeal finds no arguable issues, then the appellate court
must independently review the record.  ( ADDIN BA xc <@$cs> xl 33 s
FKMRCT000002 xhfl Rep xpl 1 Wende, >supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)  While  ADDIN
BA xc <@$cs> xl 5 s FKMRCT000002 Wende
review is mandated in a defendant’s first appeal from a criminal conviction, it
has not been applied to appeals from other proceedings.   ADDIN
BA xc <@$cs> xl 5 s FKMRCT000002 Wende
review does not apply to appeals from href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">dependency
proceedings ( ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 40 s
FKMRCT000003 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "In
re Sade C.(1996) 13 Cal.4th 952" In re
Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 959), Lanterman-Petris-Short Act
conservatorship appeals (Conservatorship
of Ben C. (2007)  ADDIN
BA xc <@oppt> xl 19 s FKMRCT000012 xpl 1 l "40 Cal.4th
529, 537" 40 Cal.4th 529, 537), civil commitments
under the Mentally Disordered Offender Act ( ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 48 s
FKMRCT000004 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "People
v. Taylor(2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304" People
v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, 308), and a petition for restoration
of competency (
ADDIN BA xc <@osdv> xl 8 s FKMRCT000013 xpl 1 l
"§ 1026.2" § 1026.2) for a person committed pursuant to
a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity ( ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 50 s
FKMRCT000005 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "People
v. Dobson(2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422" People
v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1425 ( ADDIN BA xc <@$cs> xl 6 s
FKMRCT000005 xpl 2 Dobson)).

            In  ADDIN
BA xc <@$cs> xl 6 s FKMRCT000005 Dobson,
the Court of Appeal noted that “[s]ection 1026 et seq. set forth numerous
procedural and substantive safeguards before a criminal defendant may be
committed to a state hospital pursuant to a plea of not guilty by reason of
insanity.”  ( ADDIN BA xc <@$cs> xl 41 s
FKMRCT000005 xhfl Rep xpl 1 Dobson, >supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1430.)  In addition, “[a] successful insanity plea
relieves the defendant of all criminal responsibility,” and commitment pursuant
to an insanity plea “ ‘is for the purpose of treatment, not punishment.  [Citation.]’ 
[Citation.]”  ( ADDIN BA xc <@$id> xl 14 s ID
xhfl Rep xpl 1 Id.
at p. 1432.)  Since the hearing on a
petition to restore sanity was essentially civil in nature, the  ADDIN
BA xc <@osdv> xl 14 s FKMRCT000014 l "section 1206.2" section 1206.2 hearing promoted both public
and private interests, and the insanity acquittee is accorded substantial
procedural safeguards at the hearing,  ADDIN
BA xc <@$cs> xl 5 s FKMRCT000002 Wende
review was not necessary on the appeal from an unsuccessful petition.  ( ADDIN BA xc <@$id> xl 20 s ID
xhfl Rep xpl 1 Dobson,
supra, at pp. 1436-1438.)

            A person found not guilty by reason
of insanity may be confined in a mental institution no longer than the maximum
state prison term for the underlying offense. 
(
ADDIN BA xc <@osdv> xl 19 s FKMRCT000015 xpl 1 l
"§ 1026.5, subd. (a)" § 1026.5, subd. (a); see  ADDIN
BA xc <@cs> xl 50 s FKMRCT000006 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l ">People v. Haynie(2004) 116
Cal.App.4th 1224" People
v. Haynie (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1226.)  The People may petition the trial court to
extend the period of commitment pursuant to  ADDIN
BA xc <@$osdv> xl 14 s FKMRCT000011 section 1026.5 where the defendant has
committed a felony and “by reason of a mental disease, defect, or disorder
represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others.”  ( ADDIN BA xc <@osdv> xl 22 s
FKMRCT000016 xpl 1 l "§ 1026.5, subd. (b)(1)" § 1026.5, subd. (b)(1).)  At this hearing, the defendant has a right to
appointed counsel, a jury trial, and the People must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt the person is mentally ill and a physical danger to others.  ( ADDIN BA xc <@osdv> xl 19 s
FKMRCT000017 xpl 1 l "§ 1026.5, subd. (b)" § 1026.5, subd. (b).)  If granted, a petition extends the commitment
for an additional two years.  ( ADDIN BA xc <@osdv> xl 22 s
FKMRCT000018 xpl 1 l "§ 1026.5, subd. (b)(8)" § 1026.5, subd. (b)(8).)  The “proceedings to extend commitments under  ADDIN
BA xc <@$osdv> xl 14 s FKMRCT000011 section 1026.5 are essentially civil in
nature, for which the purpose is treatment and not punishment, even though they
include many constitutional protections relating to criminal proceedings.  [Citations.]” 
(
ADDIN BA xc <@$cs> xl 41 s FKMRCT000005 xhfl Rep xpl 1 Dobson,
supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1435;
see also  ADDIN BA xc <@ocsn> xl 24 s
FKMRCT000019 xpl 1 l "People v.
Superior Court" People
v. Superior Court (Williams)
(1991)  ADDIN BA xc <@oppt> xl 23 s
FKMRCT000020 xpl 1 l "233 Cal.App.3d 477, 485" 233 Cal.App.3d 477, 485 [“An individual
subject to recommitment proceedings ‘is not threatened with penal
treatment.  He has had his criminal trial
and been adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity.  The only remaining issue is how long he must
remain committed to a state hospital for treatment.’  [Citation.] 
No criminal adjudication is involved”].)

            Like the defendant in  ADDIN
BA xc <@$cs> xl 6 s FKMRCT000005 Dobson,
the acceptance of defendant’s not guilty by reason of insanity plea relieved
her of criminal liability for her actions. 
Like the proceedings in  ADDIN
BA xc <@$cs> xl 6 s FKMRCT000005 Dobson,
recommitment proceedings serve both private and public interests by protecting
defendant and society from her potential danger.  ( ADDIN BA xc <@$cs> xl 41 s
FKMRCT000005 xhfl Rep xpl 1 Dobson, >supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at pp.
1435-1436.)  For the purposes of  ADDIN
BA xc <@$cs> xl 5 s FKMRCT000002 Wende
review, recommitment proceedings are procedurally indistinguishable from the
proceedings in  ADDIN BA xc <@$cs> xl 6 s
FKMRCT000005 Dobson
-- both are essentially civil proceedings in which the defendant is accorded
substantial protections.  Agreeing with
the reasoning in  ADDIN BA xc <@$cs> xl 6 s
FKMRCT000005 Dobson,
we therefore find that  ADDIN
BA xc <@$cs> xl 5 s FKMRCT000002 Wende
review is not appropriate in appeals from a successful petition to extend an
insanity acquittee’s commitment pursuant to  ADDIN
BA xc <@$osdv> xl 14 s FKMRCT000011 section 1026.5

            Appointed appellate counsel having
found no arguable issues and appellant having not filed a
supplemental brief, dismissal is appropriate.

DISPOSITION

            The appeal is dismissed.

 

 

 

                                                                                       NICHOLSON      , J.

 

 

 

We concur:

 

 

 

          BLEASE           , Acting P. J.

 

 

 

          MAURO          , J.