Filed 9/20/17 P. v. Roxanne A. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ROXANNE A.,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
F075251
(Super. Ct. No. MMH00477)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Ernest J. LiCalsi, Judge.
Conness A. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appointed counsel for defendant Roxanne A. asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising her of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant responded with a 44-page supplemental brief in which she contends defense counsel was ineffective for various reasons, and explains the existence of a “Widespread Criminal Chain Conspiracy” and a lack of jurisdiction in Madera County. We find no arguable issues.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On March 15, 1990, in Contra Costa County case No. 900427-6, defendant was charged with murder and the personal use of a firearm in the commission of that crime (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 12022.5, subd. (a)).[1]
On April 20, 1990, defendant was found incompetent to stand trial and was committed to the California Department of Mental Health at Patton State Hospital (PSH) for treatment (§ 1368 et seq.).
At some point, defendant regained competency and was convicted. On May 22, 1991, she was sentenced to prison for 15 years to life for second degree murder, plus a consecutive four-year term for the firearm use enhancement.
Many years later, while still in prison, defendant was found with a weapon, an AC/DC adapter in a sock. On May 1, 2014, she was charged with possession of a weapon while incarcerated (§ 4502, subd. (a)).
On August 28, 2014, in the Madera County Superior Court, defendant requested a Marsden[2] hearing. The trial court failed to address the issue, but proceeded to find defendant incompetent to stand trial pursuant to section 1368 et seq.
On September 25, 2014, the trial court committed defendant to PSH for a maximum confinement of eight years, and authorized the administration of involuntary psychotropic medication.
On October 30, 2014, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
On March 10, 2016, this court reversed the incompetency finding and remanded for a Marsden hearing.
On July 7, 2016, on remand, the trial court held a Marsden hearing. The court denied the motion and reinstated the incompetency finding, as instructed by our opinion. Defendant was ordered to remain at PSH.
On December 28, 2016, PSH informed the court there was no substantial likelihood defendant would regain trial competency in the foreseeable future. PSH requested that defendant be returned to the court pursuant to section 1370, subdivision (b)(1). PSH’s accompanying evaluation noted that defendant was currently serving a prison term of 15 years to life, and upon discharge, she would be returned to the state prison and would be provided food, shelter, and clothing. And although it was difficult to state that she would not be violent in the absence of supervised treatment, she had several years remaining on her current prison term for murder and thus would receive supervision in prison.
On January 12, 2017, the court instituted conservatorship proceedings pursuant to section 1370, subdivision (c)(2), ordered an investigation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5350, and requested that the prosecution review the status of defendant’s underlying prison term.
On January 19, 2017, the prosecution confirmed that defendant was still serving a 15-year-to-life sentence and her next parole hearing was scheduled for 2022. Accordingly, the court terminated the civil proceedings and vacated the conservatorship review hearing. The court reinstated the criminal proceedings and then dismissed them on the motion of the prosecution and in the interest of justice. The court ordered defendant returned to prison to complete her underlying prison sentence.
On February 9, 2017, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
* Before Franson, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Black, J.†
† Judge of the Fresno Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
