Filed 3/16/18 P. v. Padilla CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JOSE ULYSSES PADILLA,
Defendant and Appellant.

A152733

(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. 2-325574-2


Appellant Jose Ulysses Padilla appeals from a finding of incompetency to stand trial. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine whether there are any arguable issues for review. Appellant has also been informed of his right to file supplemental briefing, and he has not done so since the time his court appointed counsel filed her brief. After our independent review of the record, we find no errors or other issues requiring further briefing, and we affirm.
On July 25, 2017, appellant was charged in a felony complaint with two counts of resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69 ), and one misdemeanor count of possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377). The complaint also alleged five prior burglary convictions as prior serious or violent felonies and as prison priors. (§§ 667, subd. (d) and (e), 1170.12, subd. (b) and (c), and 667.5, subd. (b).)
In open court on August 3, 2017, a doubt was declared as to appellant’s competence. The trial court suspended criminal proceedings based on defense counsel’s statements and defendant’s statements in court and appointed two doctors to evaluate defendant under section 1369.
On September 11, 2017, appellant’s counsel waived his right to a jury trial on competency, and submitted the decision to the court based on the doctors’ reports. The doctors concluded that defendant was incompetent to stand trial. Based on the reports, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant was not presently able to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him and was not able to assist and cooperate with counsel in presenting a defense.
On October 2, 2017, following the recommendation of the Conditional Release Program of Contra Costa County (CONREP), the trial court ordered appellant committed under section 1370 for a maximum of three years. Defendant had earned 78 days of “actual credit.”
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record on appeal in its entirety and conclude that there are no meritorious issues to be argued.
Appellant was at all times effectively represented by counsel, who protected his rights and interests. Appellant made a motion under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 that was received by the trial court on September 20, 2017, but he clarified on October 2 that he wished to withdraw that motion “because it wasn’t meant for Ms. Regular” (his court appointed attorney from the public defender’s office), in whom he expressed confidence. (“So I trust Ms. Stephanie Regular. I’ve been with her for a long time.”)
We see no error in the trial court’s decision to find appellant incompetent to stand trial. The trial court followed the procedures set forth in sections 1367-1370. We see no error in the maximum term of commitment or the custody credits. (§ 1370.)
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
The order finding incompetency to stand trial is affirmed.









_________________________
Miller, J.


We concur:


_________________________
Kline, P.J.


_________________________
Richman, J.