Filed 8/25/26 P. v. Smith CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE, B350785
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 25CJCF02049)
v.
ELIJAH SMITH, JR.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Ronald Owen Kaye, Judge. Dismissed.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________________
This appeal follows an order finding defendant
Elijah Smith, Jr. incompetent to stand trial and committing him
to the Porterville Developmental Center. Defendant’s appointed
counsel has identified no arguable issue on appeal, and we
dismiss the appeal.
BACKGROUND
On April 15, 2025, the People filed a felony complaint
charging defendant with stalking with a prior conviction for
stalking. The People separately alleged a prior conviction for
stalking and a prior serious or violent felony conviction.
Defendant pleaded not guilty. In July 2025, the court suspended
criminal proceedings after defense counsel declared a doubt as to
defendant’s competency. Two physicians found defendant
incompetent to stand trial. The South Central Los Angeles
Regional Center submitted a report recommending that the trial
court order defendant placed at the Porterville Developmental
Center.
In December 2025, the court found defendant incompetent
to stand trial pursuant to Penal Code section 1370.1 due to a
developmental disability.1 The court ordered defendant be placed
under the supervision of the State Department of Developmental
Services and more specifically, the Porterville Developmental
Center. The trial court ordered defendant’s commitment to not
exceed two years.
1 Penal Code section 1370.1, subdivision (a)(1)(B) provides:
“If the defendant is found mentally incompetent and has been
determined by a regional center to have a developmental
disability, the trial or judgment shall be suspended until the
defendant becomes mentally competent.”
2
On appeal, defendant’s counsel filed a brief identifying no
issue. Defendant’s appellate counsel requests this court follow
the procedures identified in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007)
40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.). Counsel filed a declaration stating that
he has written to defendant and informed defendant of his right
to file a supplemental brief and that the court will dismiss the
appeal if defendant does not file a supplemental brief. This court
also sent a letter to defendant permitting him to file a
supplemental brief. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.
DISCUSSION
Criminal defendants in California who have been found
incompetent to stand trial are committed to the State
Department of State Hospitals or the State Department of
Developmental Services to receive services to restore their
competency. (Stiavetti v. Clendenin (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 691,
694.) The proceeding to determine whether the defendant is
competent is a special proceeding, not a criminal action. (People
v. Fields (1965) 62 Cal.2d 538, 540.) An order finding a
defendant incompetent is appealable under Code of Civil
Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1). (People v. Christiana
(2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1045–1046, citing Fields, at pp. 540,
542.)
In Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 535, our high court held
that independent review afforded to criminal defendants in their
first appeal as a matter of right where appointed counsel has
found no arguable issues does not apply to conservatorship
proceedings under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 5000 et seq.). Ben C. holds: “If appointed counsel in a
conservatorship appeal finds no arguable issues, counsel need not
and should not file a motion to withdraw. Instead, counsel
3
should (1) inform the court he or she has found no arguable
issues to be pursued on appeal; and (2) file a brief setting out the
applicable facts and the law. Such a brief will provide an
adequate basis for the court to dismiss the appeal on its own
motion. Dismissal of an appeal raising no arguable issues is not
inconsistent with article VI, section 14 of the California
Constitution requiring that decisions determining causes ‘be in
writing with reasons stated.’ Nothing is served by requiring a
written opinion when the court does not actually decide any
contested issues.” (Ben C., supra, at p. 544, fns. omitted.)
The procedures outlined in Ben C. apply to criminal
defendants who are found mentally incompetent to stand trial.
(People v. Blanchard (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1020, 1025.) Here,
we dismiss the appeal because counsel has identified no arguable
issue and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. (Id. at
p. 1026.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
BENDIX, Acting P. J.
We concur:
WEINGART, J. M. KIM, J.
4
