People v. Snyder CA3

Filed 3/2/23 P. v. Snyder CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096747

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF22-219)

v.

JACOB CLINTON SNYDER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jacob Clinton Snyder filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We will exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review, but find no arguable error in defendant’s favor, and affirm.

1

BACKGROUND The prosecution charged defendant with two counts of child abuse (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)1; counts 1 and 2), one count of placing a boobytrap (§ 20110, subd. (a); count 3), and one count of stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a); count 4). Defense counsel declared a doubt as to defendant’s competency to stand trial, and the trial court suspended the proceedings and appointed two mental health experts to evaluate defendant. Shortly thereafter, defendant requested a new attorney under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. After the hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s request. Defense counsel waived a jury trial on the issue of competency and the parties submitted the matter on the expert reports. The experts agreed defendant was not competent to stand trial, and the trial court made findings consistent with their conclusions, then referred the matter to the Conditional Release Program (CONREP) for its recommendation on placement. After reviewing the report, the court committed defendant to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) under section 1370. The court also found defendant could make decisions about his own antipsychotic medication but stated defendant could later withdraw his consent and the matter could return to the court for a hearing as to whether medication could be administered involuntarily. One month later, defendant filed a written Marsden motion. The trial court held a hearing on the motion and denied it. Defendant also filed a written motion objecting to the administration of antipsychotic drugs. In a written order, the court noted such motions would typically need to be filed through counsel but interpreted defendant’s motion as a withdrawal of his consent for the administration of antipsychotic medication. The court directed its written order be served on the county jail and DSH so they could