People v. Galaviz CA4/1

Filed 5/9/25 P. v. Galaviz CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084382

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS328095)

MICHAEL GALAVIZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael J. Popkins, Judge. Affirmed. Matthew Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Michael Galaviz appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded

guilty to one count of failure to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code,1 § 290.018, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced Galaviz to two years in

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

prison. On appeal, Galaviz’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no arguable issues and requesting that we independently review the record for potential issues under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We have independently reviewed the record and find no arguable issues that would result in a modification or reversal of the judgment. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In September 2023, a felony complaint was filed against Galaviz, charging him with one count of failure to register as a sex offender (§ 290.018, subd. (b)). Following an initial mental health examination of Galaviz, a state physician opined that Galaviz had the ability to understand the nature of the proceedings against him and to cooperate with his counsel in a rational manner in his own defense. However, following a second mental health examination one month later, the same physician opined that Galaviz did not adequately understand the nature of the proceedings against him and could not assist his counsel in a rational manner in his defense. The physician also opined that Galaviz was suffering from a severe mental disorder which required medical treatment with antipsychotic medications pursuant to section 1370. On January 10, 2024, the trial court conducted a hearing on Galaviz’s mental capacity and found that he was mentally incompetent. The court further found that Galaviz lacked the capacity to make a decision regarding antipsychotic medication, his mental disorder required medical treatment with antipsychotic medication and, if his mental disorder was not treated with antipsychotic medication, it was possible that serious harm to his physical or mental health would result. The court then ordered Galaviz