People v. Coker CA4/1

Filed 2/29/24 P. v. Coker CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D082664, D082665

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD256363 & SCE329342) JERRY COKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

CONSOLIDATED APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Evan P. Kirvin, Judge. Affirmed. Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2014, Jerry Coker pleaded guilty to criminal threats (Pen. Code,1 § 422, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to prison. Probation was revoked on a prior felony conviction and Coker was sentenced to a concurrent term in

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

prison. In 2019, Coker was released on parole and committed as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) (§ 2962). The most recent recommitment trial was held in August 2023. The parties waived jury trial and the court conducted a bench trial. Coker was recommitted for an additional year. Coker filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel requests the court to conduct an independent review of the record for error consistent with the holding of Wende. We invited Coker to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. Counsel candidly acknowledges existing appellate case law holding appeals from civil commitments as MDOs are not subject to the requirements of Wende. In People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304 (Taylor), the court discussed the question of whether Wende applied in appeals from civil commitments under the MDO statute. In a well-reasoned opinion, the court held that Wende does not apply to such appeals. Counsel urges us not to follow Taylor and conduct an independent review of the record for error as we would do under Wende. We reject appellate counsel’s suggestion. We will follow the court’s holding and reasoning in Taylor and conclude Wende review procedure does not apply to Coker’s current appeal. Counsel has provided a summary of the testimony presented at Coker’s most recent recommitment trial. We incorporate the summary into this opinion for background purposes. At Coker’s trial, by stipulation of the parties and without objection, reports authored by Michael Kelly, Nicole Friedman and Stacey Bernardino