P. v.
Filed 10/17/13 P. v. Flores
CA2/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID SOTO FLORES, Defendant and Appellant. | B245181 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA038397) |
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County. Daniel B.
Feldstern, Judge. Dismissed.
______
Paul
Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______
>
By information
filed on June 19, 2001, David Soto Flores was charged with attempted murder in
violation of Penal Code sections 187 and 664 (count 1), assault with a
deadly weapon in violation of subdivision (a)(1) of Penal Code section 245
(count 2), and battery with serious bodily
subdivision (d) of Penal Code section 243 (count 3).
guilty of attempted murder but dismissed counts 2 and 3, and the court then
turned to Flores’s plea of not guilty by reason of
insanity. The court found that, at the
time of the commission of the crime, Flores was not
sane within the meaning of section 1026.
The court accordingly found Flores not
guilty by reason of insanity. The court
further found that Flores had not recovered his sanity, and the court therefore
ordered Flores committed to the California Department of Mental Health for
placement in a state hospital, with his commitment not to exceed 13 years (the
maximum period of imprisonment under the charge of conviction), minus custody
credits of 197 days (172 days actual time, 25 days good time/work time).
The court
ordered that Flores remain confined to a state hospital
for inpatient psychiatric treatment until late 2006, when the hospital
recommended that Flores be referred to the conditional
release program for outpatient placement.
The court ordered a report from the conditional release program
concerning the hospital’s recommendation, and the report approved the
recommendation. The court then ordered
that Flores “may be released from†the state
hospital to the conditional release program for outpatient placement. Flores has remained on
outpatient placement since then. Time
spent on outpatient placement is not counted toward his maximum term of
commitment. (§ 1600.5.)
At a
hearing on August 10, 2011,
Flores informed the court, through counsel, that he
planned to seek restoration of sanity pursuant to section 1026.2. Flores waived jury trial,
and the matter was tried to the court.
The defense and the prosecution presented eight days of testimony,
beginning on February 10, 2012,
and ending on August 13, 2012. On November
6, 2011, counsel presented closing
arguments, and the court ruled that Flores’s “sanity
is not restored at this time.†The court
ordered that Flores’s outpatient placement
continue. Flores
timely appealed and asked that counsel be appointed to represent him on appeal.
Appointed
appellate counsel filed a brief describing the relevant course of proceedings
and informing the court that he found no arguable issues to be pursued on
appeal. We informed Flores
and invited him to submit, by brief or letter, any grounds of appeal, contentions,
or arguments he wished this court to consider.
He did not do so.
The
procedures of Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S.
738 and People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 do not apply to an appeal from a denial of a petition to restore
sanity pursuant to section 1026.2. (
1422, 1438.) We therefore dismiss the
appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal
is dismissed.
NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED.
ROTHSCHILD,
J.
We concur:
MALLANO,
P. J. CHANEY,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All
subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
