People v. White CA3

Filed 12/3/24 P. v. White CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100377

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FE- 2023-0009644) v.

ALONZO TARRENCE WHITE, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Alonzo Tarrence White, Jr., appeals after the trial court found him incompetent to stand trial and committed him to the State Department of State Hospitals (Department). His appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are arguable issues on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.

1

Although this is not defendant’s first appeal as of right, we exercise our discretion to independently review the record, following Wende. Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the trial court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The People charged defendant with sodomy by force, alleging he had committed the crime against multiple victims and against a particularly vulnerable victim. Defendant’s trial counsel informed the court that defendant had previously been found incompetent to stand trial and asked the court to find him incompetent in the sodomy case as well. The trial court found defendant incompetent to stand trial. Defendant argued he could not be committed to the Department under Penal Code section 13701 on the sodomy charge because he had reached the statutory time limit on a prior commitment for a different offense committed seven years earlier. The trial court rejected these arguments and committed defendant to the Department. Defendant filed a notice of appeal after the commitment hearing, but two days before the trial court issued a written commitment order, as required by section 1370, subdivision (a)(3)(A)(i). We exercise our discretion pursuant to rule 8.308(c) of the California Rules of Court to treat the notice as filed immediately after the filing of the commitment order. DISCUSSION In Wende, our Supreme Court held that “Courts of Appeal must conduct a review of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief on direct appeal which raises no specific issues or describes the appeal as frivolous.” (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 221.) The Wende procedure applies “to the first appeal as of right