Mason v. U.M. CA3

Filed 5/19/22 Mason v. U.M. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sutter) ----

MEEKILE N. MASON et al., C094593

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. CVSM21-0001149) v.

U.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant U.M. appeals from the superior court’s order authorizing the State Department of State Hospitals to involuntarily administer medication to U.M. following his involuntary commitment to a mental health facility. 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.) In the alternative, counsel asks this court to follow the procedures outlined in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529. As counsel concedes, however, appellant is no longer being

1

detained at any psychiatric facility. Accordingly, and for the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal as moot. BACKGROUND Appellant was admitted to the Sutter-Yuba Behavioral Health Psychiatric Facility in July 2021 on a hold under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150. On July 7, 2021, Sutter-Yuba Behavioral Health Services filed a petition and declaration regarding capacity to refuse antipsychotic medication. The hearing was held on July 8, 2021. Both appellant and his treating psychiatrist, Meekile N. Mason, testified at the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge signed an order determining that appellant lacked capacity to refuse antipsychotic medication and concluding that appellant was unaware of his situation, unable to understand the risks and benefits of treatment, and incapable of rational thought processes which would allow him to make an informed decision regarding treatment. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, conceding that his appeal may be moot because he is no longer being detained. DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. His counsel filed a brief summarizing the proceedings and stating that he found no arguable issues but nevertheless requesting that we independently review the record on appeal. Counsel notes our Supreme Court’s decision in Conservatorship of Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at page 535, which held that the Anders/Wende1 independent review procedures do not apply to civil commitments pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). Counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief