Filed 9/19/18 P. v. Ballard-Grajada 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SABRINA BALLARD-GRAJADA, Defendant and Appellant. |
A154366
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 2-326721-8)
|
Appellant Sabrina Ballard-Grajada appeals from an order finding her incompetent to stand trial and committing her to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) pursuant to Penal Code section 1370.[1] Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We will assume, without deciding, that Wende procedures are available in this appeal. Appellate counsel advised appellant of her right to file a supplementary brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue she believes deserves review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant has not filed such a brief. We have reviewed the record, find no arguable issues, and affirm.
BACKGROUND
In February 2018, a complaint charged appellant with two felony counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and, as to one of the counts, alleged appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Shortly thereafter, defense counsel declared a doubt as to appellant’s competency to stand trial. The court ordered a competency hearing and suspended criminal proceedings (§ 1368, subds. (b)–(c)). Appellant personally objected to the competency proceedings and the trial court appointed two psychologists to evaluate her (§ 1369, subd. (a)). Both doctors submitted reports opining on appellant’s competency.
Defense counsel waived appellant’s right to a jury trial on competency. The parties submitted on the doctors’ reports. The trial court found appellant incompetent to stand trial and referred the matter to the county’s conditional release program for a placement report. After receipt of the placement report, the trial court ordered appellant committed to DSH for a maximum term of three years, with credit for time served (§ 1370, subds. (a)(1)(B), (a)(3)(C), (c)(1)). The court declined to authorize DSH to administer antipsychotic medications to appellant without her consent.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal, which we construe as appealing from the commitment order. (People v. Fields (1965) 62 Cal.2d 538, 542 [“an order adjudicating the defendant to be insane and committing him to a state hospital until pronounced sane is appealable as a final judgment in a special proceeding”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2) [“The notice of appeal must be liberally construed.”].)
DISCUSSION
Appellant was adequately represented by counsel throughout the competency proceedings. The statutory requirements were followed. Substantial evidence supports the court’s incompetency finding. (People v. Marks (2003) 31 Cal.4th 197, 220.) The commitment order was appropriate.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
SIMONS, J.
We concur.
JONES, P.J.
NEEDHAM, J.
(A154366)
[1] All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
