P. v. Noble
Filed 3/9/11 P. v. Noble CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MUHAMMAD NOBLE, Defendant and Appellant. | A129682 (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR210187) |
I.
Introduction
Muhammad Noble appeals from a judgment extending his commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) pursuant to Penal Code section 2970.[1] His attorney has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (see Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738), in order to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. Appellant's counsel represented in the opening brief that he wrote to appellant and advised him of the filing of a Wende brief, and his opportunity to file his own supplemental brief within 30 days after the filing of the opening brief. We have not received a supplemental brief from appellant.
Because Wende review is not available under these circumstances, we will dismiss the appeal.
II.
Facts and Procedural History
In 2003, appellant pleaded guilty to one count of assault by a state prisoner (§ 4501), and was sentenced to the lower term of two years in state prison. Appellant was committed to Atascadero State Hospital as a condition of parole under the Mentally Disordered Offender Act (MDOA, § 2962 et seq.). In 2009 the district attorney sought and obtained a one-year extension of that commitment beyond the parole period, pursuant to section 2970. At issue here is a subsequent petition to extend the commitment for an additional year, granted after a bench trial on July 16, 2010. Appellate counsel requests, in light of his inability to identify any arguable issue on appeal, that we review the record on appeal and determine whether there are any arguable issues, pursuant to Wende. We need not conduct such a review, because the Wende procedure is not available in this matter.
Although not mentioned by appellate counsel, People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304 (Taylor) held that Wende review is not available for a civil commitment order under the MDOA. (Taylor, supra, at pp. 312-313.) Taylor is consistent with other decisions holding that the right to independent review by the appellate court does not extend to judgments that are civil in nature, even when those judgments result in the deprivation of a liberty interest. (Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 543-544 [no Wende review in Lanterman-Petris-Short conservatorship appeals]; In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 959 [no Wende review in appeals from orders affecting parental custody in juvenile dependency cases]; People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1425 [no Wende review of order denying outpatient status pursuant to petition to restore competency under § 1026.2].)
We decline to exercise our discretion to review the record for error. We find the reasoning of Taylor and those other decisions we cite to be persuasive, and we follow them here.
III.
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed.
_________________________
RUVOLO, P. J.
We concur:
_________________________
REARDON, J.
_________________________
SEPULVEDA, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
