Filed 11/27/18 P. v. Shamoun CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura Halgren, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Hadeer Shamoun appeals from an order revoking his outpatient status following his commitment to a state hospital pursuant to Penal Code section 1608.[1] In 1995, Shamoun was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) following a criminal trial, resulting in his civil commitment to a state hospital. Almost two decades later, Shamoun was discharged from the hospital and placed under community supervision on an outpatient basis. The director of Shamoun's outpatient program subsequently requested the court revoke his outpatient status following several incidents in which Shamoun failed to comply with the treatment program. The court granted that request and ordered Shamoun to be returned to state hospital. Shamoun now challenges that ruling.

On appeal, Shamoun's appointed counsel raises no arguable issues, but requests that we exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record. However, we agree with the reasoning in People v. Martinez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1226 (Martinez) and People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422 (Dobson) that the procedures set forth in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) do not apply to subsequent proceedings after trial related to the civil commitment of NGI defendants. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1995, Shamoun committed four counts of arson of an inhabited structure (§ 451, subd. (b)). The trial court found Shamoun not guilty by reason of insanity, and, in 1996, committed him to a state hospital. The trial court entered an order in 2013 discharging Shamoun from the hospital and placing him under community supervision on an outpatient basis in a conditional release program (CONREP).

In May 2017, the director of Shamoun's outpatient program notified the superior court that she was requesting that the court revoke Shamoun's outpatient status. In her request, the director noted that Shamoun's behavior had deteriorated in recent months and staff believed he was using illegal drugs. The director also discussed a recent incident in which Shamoun visited an FBI field office to report an international terrorist conspiracy premised on "delusional beliefs" that included cloning, invisible sex machines, and the need to talk with the President. The director opined that Shamoun could no longer be treated safely in the community.

Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the request to revoke Shamoun's outpatient status. Shamoun appeals from that order.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Shamoun on appeal. His counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. He informed this court that he found no arguable issues, but nevertheless requested that we exercise our discretion to independently review the record on appeal.

Counsel notes the Supreme Court's decision in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.), which held that the Anders/Wende independent review procedures do not apply to civil commitments pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 5000 et seq.). (Ben C., supra, at p. 539.)

In Martinez, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th 1226, the court reviewed Ben C. and other relevant cases and held that "due process does not require an appellate court to conduct an independent review of the appellate record [applying Anders/Wende procedures] for possible issues in an appeal from an extension of an NGI's civil commitment." (Martinez, supra, at p. 1230.)

Similarly, in Dobson, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th 1422 the court relied on Ben C. and held that Anders/Wende review is not required on appeal from an order denying an application for restoration of sanity pursuant to section 1026.2 filed by an NGI committee. (Dobson, supra, at pp. 1435-1436.)

Considered together, Martinez and Dobson establish that subsequent proceedings regarding the civil commitment of an NGI defendant do not require Anders/Wende review. We agree with the reasoning of Dobson and Martinez as applied to this appeal and decline to exercise our Ben C. discretion to conduct an independent review of the record in this case pursuant to Anders/Wende or otherwise.

Appointed counsel followed the procedures outlined in Ben C. by filing a brief informing the court that he found no arguable issues and setting out the applicable facts and the law. (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544.) Shamoun was provided with a copy of the brief and informed of his right to file a supplemental brief. Shamoun elected to do so, but his letter brief raises no arguable issues regarding the revocation of his outpatient status. Because no reasonably arguable issues have been raised by counsel or appellant, we dismiss the appeal. (Martinez, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1240.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

McCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

NARES, J.

HALLER, J.