People v. Kelley CA5

Filed 11/26/25 P. v. Kelley CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F088964 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F24901551) v.

CHAD CHRISTOPHER KELLEY, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Mark E. Cullers, Judge. Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Levy, J. and Meehan, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant Chad Christopher Kelley (appellant) was charged with two felony offenses. At the arraignment, the trial court declared a doubt as to his competency and suspended criminal proceedings pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1368. The expert’s report stated appellant was not competent to stand trial, and the court committed appellant to the State Department of State Hospitals. On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record pursuant to Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529. Appellant did not file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. We affirm. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 1, 2024, a complaint was filed in Fresno County Superior Court case No. F24901551 charging appellant with committing the following felony offenses on or about February 28, 2024: count 1, elder or dependent adult abuse (§ 368, subd. (b)(1)), and count 2, criminal threats (§ 422). On March 4, 2024, appellant pleaded not guilty. On defense counsel’s motion, the trial court declared a doubt as to appellant’s competency, suspended criminal proceedings pursuant to section 1368, and appointed an expert to examine appellant. The court served appellant with a criminal protective order only permitting peaceful contact with the victim pending further order of the court (§ 136.2), and he was released on his own recognizance. On April 15, 2024, appellant failed to appear, and the trial court issued a bench warrant for his arrest.

1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.