People v. Clark CA4/3

Filed 7/26/22 P. v. Clark CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G060967

v. (Super. Ct. No. 18CF2250)

OPI NION FORREST GORDON CLARK,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Julian W. Bailey. Dismissed. Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1

We appointed counsel to represent Forrest Gordon Clark on appeal. Clark appeals from an order finding him to be not competent to stand trial pursuant to Penal Code section 1368 (all further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated). Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client but advised the court he found no issues to argue on Clark’s behalf. Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). To assist the court in an independent review, counsel cites to two issues: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding Clark was incompetent to stand trial; and (2) whether the trial court committed error pursuant to People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez). Counsel cites to Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.), in which the court held Wende review is not available except in the first appeal of right from the criminal conviction and an appeal from a competency determination is not such an appeal. Counsel does not agree with this ruling and other cases holding that Wende review should be limited to first appeals in criminal cases, but he concedes this conclusion appears to be well established California law. We conclude traditional Wende review is not available to Clark. Counsel asserts that if this court concludes the Wende procedures are not applicable, it must follow the same procedures the Supreme Court in Ben C. directed the 1 Court of Appeal to follow when faced with the filing of a Wende/Anders brief in a Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.) conservatorship. We agree.