People v. Meyers CA1/4

Filed 9/23/16 P. v. Meyers CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A144234 v. MATTHEW CHRISTOPHER MEYERS, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05-130875-8) Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted Matthew Christopher Meyers of one count of possessing a firearm in violation of Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 8103, subdivision (f)(1), which prohibits persons who have been admitted to a mental health facility under section 5150 from possessing firearms for five years after release from the facility. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, and placed appellant on three years formal probation, subject to various conditions, including that he participate in a treatment program. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), in which he raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) Counsel attests that defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief in a timely manner, but defendant has not exercised such right.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

We have examined the entire record in accordance with Wende. For reasons set forth below, we agree with counsel that no arguable issue exists on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. BACKGROUND On September 15, 2012, Officer Peter Piersig, of the Napa Police Department, responded to a family disturbance call placed by appellant’s mother. When he arrived at the scene, Officer Piersig saw appellant in the driver’s seat of a parked truck in the driveway of the residence. In the course of speaking with Officer Piersig, appellant indicated that he had three handguns in the truck, as well as a stun gun in a pocket of his pants. Additional officers arrived at the scene, who waited outside with appellant. Officer Piersig went inside to talk with appellant’s mother, as well as two other people who were inside the house. Appellant’s mother and the other two individuals told Officer Piersig they were very concerned about appellant’s behavior. They were very concerned about his safety and the safety of other people. Appellant believed that people were following him and he talked about killing them. Officer Piersig then went back outside to talk to appellant. Appellant denied that he had any mental health issues. He refused to go voluntarily to the mental health facility with Officer Piersig. Suspecting that appellant posed a danger to himself and to others, Officer Piersig placed appellant on a section 5150 hold and drove him to a mental health facility in Napa. On September 15, 2012, Ann Finlayson, a registered nurse at Napa County Mental Health, assessed appellant and determined that “he needed to be hospitalized on a 72- hour hold for danger to others” pursuant to section 5150. She completed a 5150 form documenting her findings; appellant was admitted to the Center for Behavioral Health (“CBH”) in Vallejo, a designated facility for 5150 holds. On September 18, 2012, on the recommendation of CBH psychiatrist Dr. Kamaljeet Boora, appellant’s 72-hour hold was extended for up to an additional 14 days per section 5250. Two registered nurses at CBH, Laurie John Mackenzie and Mohammed Merbaa, each testified that it was regular practice to advise any person being discharged from a 5150 or 5250 hold that the person is not allowed to possess firearms