People v. Luper

Filed 1/14/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B308095

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. ZM042755) v.

DONNELL LUPER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert S. Harrison, Judge. Dismissed. Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________________

BACKGROUND Appellant Donnell Luper was committed to a state hospital in 2014 pursuant to section 1026 of the Penal Code1 after he was found not guilty of felony vandalism (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)) by reason of insanity (NGI). On August 27, 2020, pursuant to the People’s petition, the trial court ordered Appellant’s commitment extended for two 2 years pursuant to section 1026.5, subdivision (b). In his brief, Appellant’s counsel advises that he has reviewed the record of the section 1026.5 proceedings and found no arguable issues to raise on appeal. Counsel has further notified Appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of September 7, 2021, identifying any issues he believes warrant review and of his right to a copy of the record on appeal to facilitate such briefing. This court also notified Appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief. Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief. Counsel has taken these steps in accordance with the procedures articulated in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende)3 and requests that we independently review the record for error pursuant to those same procedures. We

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 This was the second such extension of Appellant’s commitment.

3 The Wende procedures were established in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) that an indigent criminal defendant in his first appeal of right is entitled to a full review of the record by the appellate court if counsel fails to identify any arguable issues for appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)