Filed 3/5/18 P. v. Majesty CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

AMBER SUE MAJESTY,

Defendant and Appellant.


E069496

(Super.Ct.No. FELJS1700047)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Lorenzo R. Balderrama, Judge. Dismissed.
Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Amber Sue Majesty appeals from the court’s order extending her commitment pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.5.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On March 29, 1999, defendant was incarcerated while being held on charges related to stalking and terrorizing her former husband. While incarcerated, defendant attempted to enlist a fellow inmate to kill her former husband. Defendant was later acquitted of the stalking and terrorizing charges, and found “not guilty by reason of insanity” for solicitation to commit murder. (Pen. Code, § 653f, subd. (a).) She was committed on July 7, 2000. Her commitment has been extended eight times.
On March 28, 2017, the medical director of Napa State Hospital sent a letter to the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office informing the People that defendant’s maximum term was to expire on November 18, 2017, and asking the office to file a petition for extension of commitment.
On April 7, 2017, the People filed a petition for extension of Penal Code section 1026.5, subdivision (b) commitment.
On May 19, 2017, defense counsel filed a respondent’s advisal, waiver of defendant’s appearance and request for court trial on the records.
On September 20, 2017, the matter was submitted to the trial court based on six prosecution exhibits. On September 26, 2017, the parties argued the matter before the court. On October 12, 2017, the trial court extended defendant’s commitment until November 18, 2019.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon her request, this court appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below and drawing this court’s attention to the applicable law on sufficiency of the evidence to support this recommitment. Counsel asks this court to review the recommitment proceedings in accord with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.
In making this request, counsel notes that in People v. Martinez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1238, Division Three of this Fourth Appellate District held that Wende/Anders procedures do not apply to review of Penal Code section 1026.5 extension proceedings. Counsel also acknowledges that in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 535, the California Supreme Court held that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 5000 et seq.) conservatorship proceedings are not subject to Wende/Anders review. We agree with Martinez and decline to apply Wende/Anders procedures to this case.
Because defendant has failed to raise an arguable issue on appeal from an order of recommitment, we decline to retain this case, as is permitted by Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, and dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS



RAMIREZ
P. J.


We concur:


CODRINGTON
J.


FIELDS
J.