P. v. Wharton

Filed 7/6/06 P. v. Wharton CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

James Edward Wharton appeals from a judgment extending his commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) under Penal Code section 2970. We appointed counsel to represent Wharton in this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.^[1] We advised Wharton that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter stating any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. No letter or brief has been filed.

We have examined the record and are satisfied that Wharton's appointed

appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

COFFEE, J.

We concur:

YEGAN, Acting P.J.

PERREN, J.

Frank J. Ochoa, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Real Estate Lawyers.

^[1] Our Supreme Court is currently considering whether the Wende procedure applies to cases involving certain types of involuntary civil commitments. (Conservatorship of Ben C., review granted Sept. 15, 2004, S126664.) Pending the outcome of that case, we will continue to conduct Wende reviews in MDO appeals.