People v. Shields CA1/3

Filed 5/4/22 P. v. Shields CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A162663

v. (Contra Costa County KYLE RAY SHIELDS, Super. Ct. Nos. 1-195001-3; 1-195176-3; 1-195558-2) Defendant and Appellant.

Kyle Shields appeals from an order finding him incompetent to stand trial and committing him to the State Department of State Hospitals (DSH) under Penal Code section 1370.1 Shields’s appointed counsel filed a brief that raises no issue for appeal and asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We conclude that Wende review is not required here and that the issues Shields raises in a pro se supplemental brief lack merit. We therefore affirm. BACKGROUND In January 2021, the People charged Shields with second degree robbery (§ 211) and giving false information to a peace officer (§ 148.9, subd.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1

otherwise indicated.

1

(a)). At that time, Shields also had pending charges in two separate cases for arson of a structure or forest (§ 451, subd. (c)) and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), with an enhancement for having inflicted great bodily injury upon another person (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Within the next couple of months, the court declared a doubt as to Shields’s mental competence in all three pending criminal matters. The court suspended criminal proceedings and, pursuant to section 1369, subdivision (a), designated two mental health professionals to evaluate Shields’s “mental disorder, if any, [and his] ability or inability to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner as a result of a mental disorder.” The parties stipulated that the court could decide the issue of Shields’s mental competency based solely upon the reports of the two mental health professionals, Dr. Justine M. Schmollinger, Ph.D., J.D., and Dr. Alexis Smith-Baumann, Psy.D. Dr. Schmollinger and Dr. Smith-Baumann submitted their reports to the court in March 2021.2 At the competency hearing later that month, the court found that Shields was incompetent to stand trial based on those reports, and it referred the matter to Contra Costa County Department of Mental Health’s conditional release program (CONREP) for a placement evaluation. In April 2021, pursuant to the CONREP report, the court ordered Shields committed to the DSH for a maximum term of two years. Shields appeals from that order and the trial court’s finding of incompetency.