DecisionDepot is for informational use only. Not legal advice. Always verify against the source ruling before relying on any analysis.
© 2026 DecisionDepot
27,361 rulings indexed. Last ingest about 1 hour ago .
Data refreshes about every 15 minutes during California business hours.
DecisionDepot is for informational use only. Not legal advice. Always verify against the source ruling before relying on any analysis.
© 2026 DecisionDepot dev · 2026-07-08 01:03 UTC Admin
People v. W.People CA4/2 (2023) · DecisionDepot
/ California Court of Appeal People v. W.People CA4/2 Unpublished Filed 10/2/23 P. v. W.P. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E080620
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI010342)
W.P., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Lorenzo R.
Balderrama, Judge. Affirmed.
Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant W.P. appeals from the trial court’s denial of her petition
for restoration of sanity under Penal Code section 1026.2 (the Petition). For the reasons
set forth post, we affirm the judgment.
1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE On October 19, 2021, defendant filed the Petition contending that she was no
longer a danger “due to a mental defect, disease or disorder and that she should be fully
restored to sanity, released from CONREP [Conditional Release Program], and
More from California Court of Appeal Source: opinion data from the Free Law Project / CourtListener (public-domain court records). DecisionDepot is for informational use only and is not legal advice — verify against the official reporter before relying on any text or AI-generated summary.
unconditionally released into the community.”
On December 8, 2022, a trial on the Petition commenced. Both parties presented
most of their evidence via exhibits. Moreover, defendant read a statement to the court.
On December 12, 2022, in a minute order, the court wrote: “Court denies [the Petition]
for release from outpatient treatment. Court orders MHM [the administrator of
CONREP] to provide the court with an annual report by 05/23/23. Court orders exhibits
to be returned to the parties.”
On January 31, 2023, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS At the hearing on the Petition, defendant “[did] not wish to testify.” Instead, she
read a prepared statement “into the record.”
Defendant acknowledged that she was committed to Patton State Hospital for
mental health treatment based on a crime she committed in 2000. Defendant stated that
she had participated in hundreds of sessions with various treatment providers and had
worked on issues including understanding her mental disorder and criminal behavior.
In addition to these one-on-one meetings, defendant also attended hundreds of
group therapy sessions. She completed two drug relapse prevention programs, each of
which lasted six months. She also attended and continues to attend Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) on a regular basis. Defendant
completed a comprehensive recovery wellness action plan and claimed: “I have been
diligent in understanding my mental illness and learned throughout the years how to
recognize my warning signs, triggers, and how to utilize my coping skills.”
Defendant then stated: “Your Honor, I have learned how important my
medication is and how vital abstaining from alcohol and drugs are. I have learned from
decompensation in 2009 that if I stop my medication and/or use alcohol and drugs that I
could become dangerous to others, which is not what I want to ever happen again. It may
be odd to say that I am thankful for that decompensation, but I learned how vital it is in
continuing my medication and abstaining from drugs and alcohol and continuing
Defendant claimed not to have suffered any symptoms of her mental disorders in
13 and a half years. She stated she would continue to attend AA, NA, and therapy even
after her discharge, because she wanted to remain safe and in the community. She stated
that she had family and friends who would support her, and had arranged for a bridge
prescription to keep her medication going while she moved to Alabama. She located a
psychiatrist in Alabama who would take care of providing her medication going forward.
She had also located places to attend AA and NA meetings near her intended new home
Defendant expressed remorse for what she did and stated she understood what she
put her victim, his family, and the victim’s secretary through on the day she committed
her crime. She apologized to the court and the people for her behavior and asked the
judge to restore her to sanity and give her another chance at an independent life.
Defendant submitted exhibits with the court documenting her AA/NA attendance
sheets, her ongoing participation in treatment programs, prescriptions to ensure
medication coverage during any transition, certificates documenting defendant
completing treatment programs, detailed relapse prevention plans created for defendant,
and investigator reports from the public defenders office containing numerous statements
from different individuals in support of defendant.
The exhibits submitted by the prosecutor included a certified copy of defendant’s
record of arrests and prosecutions, reports prepared by social workers giving insight into
defendant’s mental health issues and diagnoses, a report on defendant’s suitability for
sanity restoration based on her psychological evaluations, criminal, physical health and
mental health histories, reports on defendant’s diagnosis for borderline personality
disorder and defendant’s lack of acceptance and insight into the disorder, reports
analyzing the unfeasibility of defendant’s postrelease plans, notes from individual
therapy sessions, and other documents providing information, such as defendant’s
After defendant read her statement to the court, the trial court asked, “Counsel, is
the matter submitted on the documents that you have offered to the Court?” Both defense
counsel and the prosecutor responded “yes.”
The prosecutor then asked if he could make a brief comment, and then stated:
“I think we have exhibits and we have [defense counsel’s] exhibits, and I know
you read them carefully. I believe once you read the exhibits, you’ll notice that there
appears to be only one issue that the parties disagree. All the rest, I think both parties
pretty much agree, and the issue—appears to me to be the only issue is the diagnosis of
the borderline personality disorder. CONREP believes that [defendant] has been
diagnosed, and my understanding is that [defendant] disagrees with that diagnosis. I
believe it really comes down to that issue, whether that diagnosis is in existence or—or
not and, if it is, how it affects the fact of whether [defendant] has been restored or not.
DISCUSSION After defendant appealed, and upon her request, this court appointed counsel to
represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the
case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and has requested this court to
undertake a review of the entire record. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified the
following issue to assist the court in its search of the record for error:
“If this court concludes that Wende/Anders procedures are not applicable to SVP
cases, appellate counsel and this court must comply with the procedures outlined in Ben
1 In re Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529.
Thereafter, counsel identified issues of sufficiency of the evidence, Sanchez2 error,
and inadmissible hearsay as potential issues on appeal.
After defense counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende, supra, we offered
defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and she has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the record for potential error. We are satisfied that defendant’s
attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue
exists. (Id. at p. 126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
CODRINGTON J. 2 People v. Sanchez (2016) 64 Cal.4th 665.