People v. Rivas CA5

Filed 11/3/21 P. v. Rivas 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F080380 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Fresno Super. Ct. No. F18903049) v.

CONNIE LOUISE RIVAS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Adolfo M. Corona, Judge. Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant Connie Louise Rivas has appealed from the superior court’s finding that she was not competent to stand trial. On appeal, her appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On May 9, 2018, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Fresno County charging defendant with committing the following offenses on or about January 9, 2018: count 1, false personation of L.J. (Pen. Code, §529, subd. (a)(3));1 and count 2, misdemeanor petty theft at J.C. Penny’s department store (§ 484, subd. (a)), with one prior strike conviction. On July 30, 2018, defendant pleaded not guilty, and the court issued and served her with a criminal protective order pursuant to section 136.2, prohibiting contact with L.J. Thereafter, defendant was on pretrial release, failed to appear, and was remanded on bench warrants throughout 2018 and 2019. Competency proceedings On June 20, 2019, the court convened a hearing on the instant case and defendant’s six other pending criminal cases. Based on an advisement from defense counsel, the court declared a doubt as to defendant’s competency, suspended criminal proceedings pursuant to section 1368, and appointed an expert to examine defendant. On August 5, 2019, the court reviewed the report and found defendant was not competent and referred the matter to forensic mental health to recommended appropriate services.

1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.