People v. Jackson CA3

Filed 7/30/21 P. v. Jackson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C088572

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-MH- SVPR-2015-0000014) v.

HERSHEL JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Hershel Jackson appeals from the civil commitment order entered after jury trial and committing appellant to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.).1 We appointed counsel to represent Jackson on appeal. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief invoking the independent judicial review procedures set forth in Anders v. State of

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. For reasons discussed in People v. Kisling (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 288, as well as Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.), we conclude that Anders/Wende review on appeal is not available in this civil commitment proceeding; accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND On February 4, 2015, the People filed a petition seeking to commit Jackson as a sexually violent predator (SVP) pursuant to section 6000 et. seq. The jury found he qualified as an SVP. The trial court committed him for appropriate treatment and confinement in a secure facility for an indeterminate term. He timely appealed. The matter was assigned to this panel on June 25, 2021. DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief citing Anders and Wende. Counsel acknowledged that the courts of appeal have concluded Wende/Anders procedures do not apply to SVP proceedings. Accordingly, in accordance with Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at page 544, counsel set forth the basic facts and procedural history of the case. Counsel declared that he advised appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief or letter containing any issues he wishes this court to consider.2 We have received no briefing directly from Jackson. We recognize that Kisling involved an individual’s appeal from an order denying his petition to be released from a commitment under the SVPA, whereas Jackson’s current appeal is taken from an order committing him to the Department of State