P. v. Phillips
Filed 8/10/07 P. v. Phillips CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LANIKA A. PHILLIPS, Defendant and Appellant. | D050149 (Super. Ct. No. MH100370) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kerry Wells, Judge. Dismissed.
In superior court case number SCS191672, Lanika A. Phillips was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,[1] 245, subd. (a)(1)), with personal use of a knife ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and personal infliction of great bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (a)). In superior court
case number SCD195320, Phillips was charged with murder ( 187, subd. (a)), with personal use of a knife ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)), while on felony probation ( 1203, subd. (k)), three serious felony prior convictions ( 667, subd. (a)(1)), and three strikes
( 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
In September 2006, the court suspended criminal proceedings and ordered a mental competency examination and hearing ( 1368 et seq.). In December, the court received in evidence two reports from the examining psychiatrist. The court found that Phillips was a danger to others; that she lacked the capacity to make a decision regarding antipsychotic medication; that her mental disorder required treatment with such medication; and that without the medication, she might suffer serious harm to her physical or mental health. The court concluded that Phillips was not mentally competent to stand trial and ordered her committed to Patton State Hospital for a maximum term of three years. Phillips appeals. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
BACKGROUND
The complaint in case number SCS191672 alleged that on February 21, 2005, Phillips assaulted Swantay Nash. The information in case number SCD195320 alleged that sometime between November 28 and 30, 2005, Phillips murdered Penny Powell. The psychiatrist's reports stated that Phillips suffered from a severe mental illness; that she did not have a sufficient understanding of the nature of the criminal proceedings; that she lacked the capacity to assist counsel; and concluded that she was incompetent to stand trial. The reports also noted that Phillips had impaired impulse control and a history of unprovoked assaults; that she was charged with a very violent crime; that she lacked the capacity to make decisions; and that psychiatric medication was necessary and should be ordered to restore her competency.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error, as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, she lists as a possible, but not arguable, issue whether the court abused its discretion by finding that Phillips was incompetent on the basis of an examination and report by only one doctor. We granted Phillips permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded.
Appellate counsel requests that this court take judicial notice of the May 7, 2007, minutes in the above cases. The minutes reflect an order by superior court judge Albert I. Harutunian, III, reinstating criminal proceedings in both cases based on a finding that Phillips is presently mentally competent to stand trial. We grant the request for judicial notice, take judicial notice of the minute order, and conclude that this appeal is moot.[2]
Phillips has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
Appeal dismissed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, Acting P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line attorney.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] We also note that a review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
