People v. Wilson CA5

Filed 9/21/23 P. v. Wilson CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F085233 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF191035A) v.

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL WILSON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Chad A. Louie, Judge. Stephanie L. Gunther, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.

Defendant Christopher Michael Wilson was charged with felony vandalism, but was found incompetent to stand trial and was committed to the State Department of State Hospitals (DSH). Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no error and asking the court to determine whether there were any arguable issues on appeal. Defendant was afforded an opportunity to submit a supplemental brief but failed to do so in the time allotted. We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no error. We affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 27, 2022, the Kern County District Attorney filed a complaint charging defendant with felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)).1 The complaint further alleged that defendant had suffered three prior “strike” convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). On August 12, 2022, defendant’s trial counsel expressed a doubt regarding defendant’s competency within the meaning of sections 1367 and 1368. In response, the trial court ordered the proceedings suspended and two mental health professionals appointed to assess defendant’s competency. On September 8, 2022, the court notified a licensed psychologist and a clinical psychologist of their appointments. On September 22, 2022, the licensed psychologist submitted a report recommending that the court find defendant was not competent to stand trial. On September 26, 2022, the clinical psychologist submitted a report making the same recommendation. On October 4, 2022, the trial court found defendant incompetent to stand trial and referred the matter to Kern Behavioral Health and Recovery Services for placement and medication recommendations (§§ 1369, subd (a), 1370, subd. (b), 1370.01, subd. (b)). On October 12, 2022, a psychiatrist employed by Kern Behavioral Health and Recovery Services submitted a report recommending that defendant be treated at a DSH