P. v. Curtis CA3

Filed 6/21/13 P. v. Curtis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

THE PEOPLE, C071715

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CRF-02-2410, v. CRF-02-2780, CRF-02-2892) CHERRIE LYNN CURTIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Cherrie Lynn Curtis was committed to the state mental hospital pursuant to Penal Code section 10261 in 2003 after the trial court found her not guilty by reason of insanity to the criminal charges of five counts of resisting an officer by force (§ 69), two counts of misdemeanor battery (§ 242), and one count of brandishing a deadly weapon, a misdemeanor (§ 417, subd. (a)(1)).

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

On August 30, 2011, the People filed a petition to extend defendant‟s commitment pursuant to section 1026.5. Following a court trial, the trial court granted the motion and continued defendant‟s commitment to the state mental hospital. We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case, raising no issues, and requesting this court review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Appellant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from appellant. If appointed counsel in a criminal defendant‟s first appeal finds no arguable issues, then the appellate court must independently review the record. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) While Wende review is mandated in a defendant‟s first appeal from a criminal conviction, it has not been applied to appeals from other proceedings. Wende review does not apply to appeals from dependency proceedings (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 959), Lanterman-Petris-Short Act conservatorship appeals (Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 537), civil commitments under the Mentally Disordered Offender Act (People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, 308), and a petition for restoration of competency (§ 1026.2) for a person committed pursuant to a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity (People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1425 (Dobson)). In Dobson, the Court of Appeal noted that “[s]ection 1026 et seq. set forth numerous procedural and substantive safeguards before a criminal defendant may be committed to a state hospital pursuant to a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.” (Dobson, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1430.) In addition, “[a] successful insanity plea relieves the defendant of all criminal responsibility,” and commitment pursuant to an insanity plea “ „is for the purpose of treatment, not punishment. [Citation.]‟ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1432.) Since the hearing on a petition to restore sanity was essentially civil in