People v. Shamoun CA4/1
Filed 7/12/24 P. v. Shamoun CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D083287
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. ECR11141)
HADEER SHAMOUN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carlos O. Armour, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. Hadeer Shamoun appeals an order extending for two years his civil
commitment under Penal Code section 1026.51 as a person who was previously found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI). On appeal, Shamoun’s appointed counsel raises no arguable issues but asks this court to
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
exercise its discretion to conduct an independent review of the record. However, we agree with the reasoning and holding in People v. Martinez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1226 (Martinez) that the procedures set forth in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) do not apply to an extension of NGI civil commitment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1996, the trial court found Shamoun not guilty by reason of insanity of four counts of arson of an inhabited structure (§ 451, subd. (b)) and committed him to a state hospital. After several unsuccessful placements on an outpatient basis under community supervision in a conditional release program, Shamoun’s outpatient status was revoked and he was recommitted to the state hospital. His maximum date of confinement was set to expire on July 15, 2023. In May 2023, the People filed a petition pursuant to section 1026.5 seeking to extend Shamoun’s civil commitment an additional two years. In the petition, the People alleged Shamoun still suffers from a mental disease, defect, or disorder and by reason of such mental disease, defect, or disorder represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. To support the petition, the People attached an affidavit from the medical director of the state hospital, who opined that Shamoun is still suffering from a mental disease, defect, or disorder and, as a result, continues to represent a substantial danger of physical harm to others. The trial court subsequently appointed two doctors to examine Shamoun pursuant to section 1026.2. Shamoun’s trial commenced on October 24, 2023 and Shamoun was represented by counsel. At trial, the People presented testimony from a psychiatrist, a clinical social worker, and three forensic psychologists. In his
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)