In re Engel CA4/3

Filed 6/23/16 In re Engel CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re ROBERT BRUCE ENGEL, G053343

on Habeas Corpus. (Super. Ct. No. 11HF1297)

OPINION

Original proceedings; petition for a writ of habeas corpus to file a late notice of appeal. Petition granted. Appellate Defenders, Inc., and Patricia Ihara for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent Court. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, and Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General for Respondent.

* * *

THE COURT:* Petitioner Robert Bruce Engel seeks relief from the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. The petition is granted. Petitioner is 72 years old. He is currently on parole/post-release community supervision along with a Penal Code section 290 registration requirement pursuant to a judgment issued by the by the Orange County Superior Court on October 23, 2015. Petitioner was found guilty at a bench trial before Judge Craig L. Griffin on October 4, 2012, of one count of indecent exposure with a prior. Petitioner was granted in propia persona status after his verdict, but before he was sentenced. On August 9, 2013, petitioner agreed to the appointment of the Public Defender to represent him. On November 19, 2013, the Public Defender declared a doubt as to petitioner’s competency and criminal proceedings were suspended. On April 2, 2014, the trial court ordered petitioner committed to Patton State Hospital. Petitioner appealed the commitment order in case No. G050074. On December 19, 2014, the trial court found petitioner restored to mental competency, ordered the criminal proceedings reinstated, and released petitioner on his own recognizance. Petitioner then borrowed money to retain attorney Patrick Smith to prepare and file a new trial motion on his behalf. In the event the motion was denied, the motion would serve as a foundation for the drafting of a future appeal on his behalf. The new trial motion was heard on October 23, 2015, and raised several issues. Those issues included insufficiency of the evidence; whether the trial court erred when it failed to make a finding that petitioner’s jury trial waiver was voluntary, knowingly and intelligently made; and whether the trial court committed prejudicial evidentiary error.