P. v. Glover
Filed 7/19/07 P. v. Glover CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DWAYNE GLOVER, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B195155 (Super. Ct. No. F377053) (San Luis Obispo County) |
Dwayne Glover appeals from the judgment (order of commitment) entered after a jury found that he was a mentally disordered offender. (MDO; Pen. Code, 2962 et seq.)[1] The trial court committed appellant to the California Department of Mental Health for treatment as a condition of his parole. ( 2966, subd. (b).)
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
On June 27, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. On July 11, 2007, we received a letter from appellant stating that the trial court erred in excluding a lab report. This contention is without merit. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)
Appellant subpoenaed the lab report for trial and claimed the report would show that he was not delusional when he committed the controlling offense, assault with a deadly weapon. ( 245, subd. (a)(1).) Appellant believed the victim had sexually assaulted him and beat the victim with a claw hammer while the victim was sleeping. DNA tests were conducted on a napkin that appellant gave to the police and the lab report indicated no semen or fluid belonging to the victim. The trial court excluded the lab report for lack of foundation.
Doctor Erika Wartena, appellant's treating psychiatrist, testified that appellant suffers from delusional disorder, a severe mental disorder manifested by paranoid, grandoise, and somatic delusions, and that appellant meets all the MDO criteria.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment (order of commitment) is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
PERREN, J.
John A. Trice, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
