People v. E.L. CA4/2 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/25/24 P. v. E.L. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E082802
v. (Super.Ct.No. FELSB23000077)
E.L., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Kawika Smith,
Judge. Dismissed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Ervin Longstreet appeals from a trial court’s order
extending for two years his commitment to a state hospital under Penal Code1 section
1026.5, subdivision (b). We dismiss the appeal.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) but
found not guilty by reason of insanity. He was committed to Patton State Hospital, but
later transferred to Sylmar Health and Rehabilitation Center (Sylmar), with a term of
commitment to expire on November 5, 2023.
On June 29, 2023, a petition was filed to extend defendant’s commitment,
pursuant to section 1026.5, subdivision (b). Defendant’s primary therapist at Sylmar
opined that, without appropriate supervision, defendant continued to present significant
danger to others due to his mental disorder. A jury found the petition true, and the court
extended defendant’s commitment to November 5, 2025.
ANALYSIS
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. His counsel filed a brief
summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel requested that we exercise our
discretion to independently review the record on appeal under the authority of People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. He did not
identify an arguable issue but generally directed our attention to “whether there was
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise
indicated.
2
sufficient evidence to sustain the petition to extend [defendant’s] commitment.” This
court advised defendant he had 30 days to file a personal supplemental brief. He has not
filed one.
Wende procedures do not apply to appeals from extensions of civil commitments
of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity. (People v. Martinez (2016) 246
Cal.App.4th 1226, 1230, 1239-1240; accord, People v. Luper (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th
1077, 1082-1083.) Although an appellate court may retain an appeal
where Wende review is not mandatory (Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529,
544, fn. 7), the circumstances here do not warrant such a course of action. We shall
accordingly dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS
J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON
Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL
J.
3