P. v. Tyler
Filed 8/29/07 P. v. Tyler 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. ARTHUR JAMES TYLER, Defendant and Appellant. | D050056 (Super. Ct. No. MH99710) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kerry Wells, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
In June 2005 Arthur James Tyler pleaded guilty in case No. CN194973 to a misdemeanor of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code,[1] 422, 17, subd. (b)(4)). The court placed him on three years' probation. In April 2006 Tyler was charged in case No. CN209725 with two misdemeanor counts of disobeying a court order ( 166, subd. (a)(4)). The court suspended criminal proceedings in both cases pending
determination of Tyler's mental competence ( 1368). In May the court found that Tyler was not mentally competent to stand trial, ordered him committed to the psychiatric security unit (PSU) of the San Diego County jail for a maximum term of one year and authorized the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication. Tyler appealed. (People v. Tyler(Feb. 13, 2007, D048730) [nonpub. opn.].)
On August 3, 2006, PSU staff determined that Tyler's competency had been restored. When Tyler appeared in court on August 23, however, it appeared that his condition had deteriorated, and the court ordered another competency evaluation. On August 29 psychiatrist Kristin Montalvo examined Tyler and diagnosed schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type.[2] On September 6 psychiatrist David Naimark also examined Tyler.
On September 13, 2006, the court received into evidence reports from Montalvo, Naiman, and Mark Malay, Tyler's mental health provider at PSU. According to the reports, Tyler suffered from a severe mental disorder and was unable to provide for his basic needs; he should be in a locked psychiatric unit; he had attempted to harm others while in custody; he lacked a complete understanding of the nature of the criminal proceedings and was unable to assist counsel; he was incompetent to stand trial; he would benefit from continued psychiatric treatment for restoration of competency; antipsychotic medication might restore competency; without such medication, it was extremely unlikely that he would ever be competent to stand trial; he lacked capacity to make a decision regarding antipsychotic medication; and medication would be in his best medical interest. The court found that Tyler was not mentally competent to stand trial and ordered him committed to the PSU for a maximum term of one year. It also found that he lacked capacity to make a decision regarding antipsychotic medication. His mental disorder required treatment with such medication, without it he might suffer serious harm to his own physical or mental health, and he was a danger to others. The court authorized the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication.
On December 1, 2006, the superior court received a notice of appeal which Tyler filed in propria persona.[3] On January 18, 2007, this court ordered the notice of appeal constructively filed.
Meanwhile, on December 12, 2006, the jail treatment team determined that there was no indication that Tyler would be restored to competency. On December 26 the trial court ordered that he be returned to court ( 1370). In early January 2007 Dr. Naimark examined Tyler and concurred with the jail treatment team. On January 22, 2007, the court ordered a psychiatric examination for a conservatorship referral. On February 1 Dr. Naimark examined Tyler. On February 13 this court issued the opinion in People v. Tyler, supra, D048730, concluding that Tyler's period of commitment had exceeded the maximum term and remanding the case for further proceedings. On February 15 Dr. Naimark reported that Tyler's mental state had improved as a result of his controlled
environment, but if left to his own devices, Tyler would become gravely disabled and likely be a danger to others. On February 16 the trial court granted Tyler's motion to dismiss the two criminal cases and the mental health case, and ordered him released from custody forthwith.
BACKGROUND
Case Nos. CN194973 and CN209725 resulted from a series of events at Mira Costa College, where Tyler became fixated on various individuals and threatened several others.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below. He 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 he lists, as a possible but not arguable issue, whether Tyler has a cognizable issue on appeal when his case has been dismissed and he has been released from custody. We granted Tyler permission to file a brief on his own behalf.[4] He has not responded.
In view of the disposition in People v. Tyler, supra, D048730, as well as the dismissal of the two criminal cases and the mental health case, along with Tyler's release from custody, this appeal is moot and is therefore dismissed.[5] Tyler has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
Appeal dismissed.
NARES, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
IRION, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] The previous diagnosis was paranoid schizophrenia.
[3] The notice of appeal refers to the May 10 order only, but the superior court clerk properly construed the appeal as being from the latest order in the case─September 13.
[4] Because counsel does not know Tyler's whereabouts or forwarding address, and the court has been unable to obtain a forwarding address, the order granting Tyler permission to file a brief on his own behalf was sent to counsel, with the request that he advise Tyler of the order should counsel be able to communicate with Tyler.
[5] 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.
