P. v. McNeal
Filed 6/7/06 P. v. McNeal CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRIAN STEVEN McNEAL, Defendant and Appellant. | D046491 (Super. Ct. No. MH98328) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert W. Krauel, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
On September 30, 2004, a felony complaint charged Brian Steven McNeal with five counts of grand theft and two counts each of residential burglary and receiving stolen property. In October 2004, the trial court suspended the criminal proceeding and ordered a competency hearing. (Pen. Code, § 1368.) The following month, the trial court concluded that McNeal was not mentally competent and committed him to Patton State Hospital (Patton) for three years. In March 2005, the trial court concluded that McNeal was mentally competent and reinstated the criminal proceedings, but in April 2005 it again suspended the proceedings and ordered McNeal evaluated for mental competency. On May 2, 2005, the court found McNeal mentally incompetent and committed him to Patton for three years, with 76 days credit for time served (the May order).
McNeal appealed the May order and appointed appellate counsel asks us to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. This court and appellate counsel also advised McNeal of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not responded.
We requested supplemental briefing as to whether the Anders/Wende procedure applies to an appeal from a finding of mental incompetence. After reviewing the briefing and the superior court files, we sought supplemental briefing on whether any potential error contained in the commitment order under review was rendered moot in light of subsequent events, specifically, the trial court's November 16, 2005 order finding McNeal competent and reinstating the criminal proceedings, the January 13, 2006 order suspending the criminal proceeding, the January 30, 2006 order finding McNeal competent and the April 19, 2006 order again suspending the criminal proceedings and ordering another competency hearing.
The People contend, and we agree, that through these subsequent court orders McNeal has already been afforded the relief he would have been granted if reversible error had been found in the May order. Although McNeal concedes the appeal is moot, he urges us to engage in discretionary review. Under the facts of this case, we decline to do so.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
McINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
BENKE, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Apartment Manager Lawyers.
