People v. C.G. CA4/2 ( 2024 )

Filed 9/11/24 P. v. C.G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E082795
v. (Super.Ct.No. FELSB23000071)
C.G., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Kawika Smith,
Judge. Dismissed.
Paul R. Kraus, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant C.G. was convicted of robbery (Pen. Code1, §211) and
was sentenced to prison. The Board of Prison Terms (BPT) determined that she met the
criteria for being committed as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) and required her to
accept treatment as a condition of parole. Defendant filed a petition pursuant to section
2966 challenging the BPT’s determination that she be committed. The court found
defendant met the criteria of an MDO and ordered her to remain committed to the State
Department of Mental Health and continue receiving treatment.
Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), setting
forth a statement of the case and a statement of the facts, and advising that he has found
no arguable issues. Counsel argues that due process requires this court to undertake an
independent review of the appellate record to determine whether this appeal presents any
arguable issues. (Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) {AOB 8,
37-42} However, we have no obligation to independently review the record for error.
(People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, 312-314 (Taylor) [Wende and Anders
procedures do not apply in appeals from orders committing MDO’s]; see , People v.
Martinez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1236-1237; Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40
Cal.4th 529, 543-544 (Ben C.) [Wende procedures do not apply to
Lanterman- Petris- Short Act conservatorship proceeding].)
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise
indicated.
2
We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. She has
not filed one. Defendant asks us to exercise our discretion to retain the appeal
(See Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544, fn. 7), yet she offers no legitimate reason for us
to do so. Under the circumstances, we shall dismiss the appeal. (Taylor, supra, 160
Cal.App.4th at pp. 313-314.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORT
FIELDS
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
McKINSTER
J.
3