P. v. Madsen
Filed 5/9/06 P. v. Madsen CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID MADSEN, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B186801 (Super. Ct. No. F375452) (San Luis Obispo County)
|
David Madsen appeals the judgment (order of commitment) following a court trial in which he was determined to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, § 2962 et seq.) He was committed to the California Department of Mental Health for treatment as a condition of his parole. (Id., § 2966, subd. (c).)
We appointed counsel to represent Madsen in this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that this court independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On February 27, 2006, we advised Madsen that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter stating any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. Madsen did not respond.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Madsen's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
PERREN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
YEGAN, J.
John A. Trice, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Apartment Manager Attorneys.
