People v. Navarro CA3

Filed 4/19/21 P. v. Navarro CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Siskiyou) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091909

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCYK-CRF- 2015-706-2) v.

BALDEMAR NAVARRO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Baldemar Navarro appeals from the trial court’s order authorizing the involuntary administration of medication. His appointed counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We conclude defendant is not entitled to a Wende review and will dismiss this appeal as abandoned.

1

BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with eight counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child-- six for sexual penetration (Pen. Code, § 269, subd. (a)(5)),1 one for rape (§ 269, subd. (a)(1)), and one for oral copulation (§ 269, subd. (a)(4))--and two counts of lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a)). It was further alleged that for all counts defendant committed an offense specified in section 667.61, subdivision (c) against more than one victim (§ 667.61, subds. (b) & (e)); for all counts but one lewd act count that more than one victim was under 14 years old; and that for all counts he had two prior convictions for sex crimes (§§ 667.51, subd. (a), 667.6, subd. (a)). On January 15, 2019, the trial court found defendant not competent to stand trial and suspended criminal proceedings. The court based its finding on two psychologists’ reports. The court also heard and denied defendant’s motion for new counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. The court committed defendant to the State Department of State Hospitals for a maximum of two years. On January 16, 2020, the State Department of State Hospitals filed a petition to compel involuntary treatment with antipsychotic medications. The trial court held a hearing on the petition on January 30, 2020. A psychiatrist who had been working with defendant at the state hospital testified in support of the petition. The court found “the evidence established really without contradiction that [defendant] lacks the capacity to make decisions regarding antipsychotic medication,” “his mental disorder requires medical treatment with antipsychotic medication,” and “that serious harm will result to [defendant’s] mental health if he’s not treated with antipsychotic medication.” Consequently, the court ordered defendant be administered antipsychotic medication involuntarily. Defendant filed a notice of appeal to this order on April 22, 2020.