Filed 9/1/17 P. v. Ponds-Johnson CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We briefly recount the facts and procedural history in accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.

An information charged defendant Melbe Ponds-Johnson with assault with a deadly weapon and by force likely to produce great bodily injury upon California Highway Patrol Officer Finn (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c)—count one),[1] resisting Officer Finn by use of force and violence (§ 69—count two), resisting Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputies Harrington and McCowan and Sergeant Polete by use of force and violence (§ 69—count three), and felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)—count four).[2] Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.

About 4:30 a.m. on March 6, 2014, California Highway Patrol Officer Finn, dispatched to investigate a disturbance, saw defendant barefoot and carrying a bag around her shoulder, in the middle of the road walking towards him. He stopped his patrol car and got out. She approached him with her arms raised. Seeing a large knife in her hand, Officer Finn got back into his car and started to back up. Defendant jumped onto the hood, braced her feet against the car’s push bumpers, held onto the windshield wiper with one hand, and swung her hand with the knife towards the driver’s side window and the windshield, causing a crack. Defendant was yelling, “Help me, help me.” The officer yelled at defendant to get off the car while he braked and swerved. She slid off the hood of the car and the officer stopped 50 feet away. Using his loudspeaker, he told her to drop the knife. She failed to comply and advanced towards him. He drove past her and she ran at the car, swinging the knife. Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputies McCowan and Harrington, and Sergeant Polete arrived and used their floodlights on defendant who started to walk towards them. She failed to comply with their repeated orders to drop the knife. When defendant got within 20 feet of Deputy Harrington, he used his Taser but defendant pulled the leads out and ran with the deputies in pursuit. A second Taser missed. Deputy McCowan used his Taser, which connected and defendant fell to the ground, dropping the knife that had an eight-inch blade. Defendant resisted while the deputies handcuffed her.

Defendant testified. About 2:00 a.m., she had had a psychotic break and crashed her car. She started walking down the road. Thinking she was being chased, she retrieved the knife from her purse. She sought assistance from Officer Finn and jumped on his car for attention, beating the window and screaming for help. She walked towards the bright lights and saw one deputy pull out his gun. She thought it would be better if they shot and killed her. Although she raised the knife, she did not intend to stab them.

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted on counts one through three. At the sanity phase of trial, the defense submitted three psychiatric/psychological reports and all three experts opined that defendant was legally insane at the time of the offenses. The parties stipulated that if called to testify, each expert would qualify as an expert and would give testimony consistent with his report with the same conclusion. The prosecutor did not contest insanity. A jury found defendant to be insane at the time of her commission of the offenses.

Concluding that defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity and finding that defendant had not fully recovered her sanity, the court committed defendant to Napa State Hospital for a period of no more than five years eight months or until she is restored to sanity. (§ 1026.) The court awarded 73 days of credit.

Defendant appeals.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.[3] Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The order of commitment is affirmed.

BUTZ , J.

We concur:

RAYE , P. J.

BLEASE , J.