People v. Smith, B175297.
Citation | 127 Cal.App.4th 896,26 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 |
Decision Date | 23 March 2004 |
Docket Number | No. B175297.,B175297. |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Tom SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. |
Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey and J. Michael Lehmann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The issue in this case is whether the procedures constitutionally required in an appeal by a indigent criminal defendant under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071 (Wende) also apply to the appeal from an order of commitment under the Mentally Disordered Offender statute ("MDO") pursuant to Penal Code section 2962 et seq.1 Based upon relevant authority from the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court, we conclude Anders and Wende do not apply to an appeal under the MDO statutes.
The District Attorney of Los Angeles County filed a petition to extend the involuntary commitment of appellant Tom Smith ("appellant") pursuant to section 2970. The petition alleged that appellant was previously committed pursuant to section 2962 as severely mentally disordered after having been found guilty of assault with intent to commit rape in violation of section 220. The petition further alleged that appellant has a severe mental disorder, that the severe mental disorder is not in remission, or cannot be kept in remission if appellant's treatment is not continued and that by reason of appellant's severe mental disorder, appellant represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others.
A jury found the allegations of the petition to be true. The trial court ordered appellant recommitted to Patton State Hospital for a period of one year beyond the previous commitment order. Patton State Hospital was ordered to provide appropriate treatment and confinement.
Following the filing of a timely notice of appeal, we appointed counsel to represent appellant before this court. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth an accurate statement of the case and statement of facts, followed by an argument pursuant to Wende, requesting this court to independently review the entire record on appeal. Counsel indicated he had reviewed the entire record and remained available to brief any additional issues upon the court's request. Counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief. The opening brief included a declaration from counsel consistent with the requirements of Wende.
In response to appellant's Wende brief, this court issued an order observing that an appeal from an MDO commitment constituted a postjudgment civil proceeding. Noting that the California Supreme Court in In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 978-983, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771, 920 P.2d 716 (Sade C.) held that the Anders and Wende procedures are not applicable to a civil appeal, we directed counsel for appellant to file a supplemental opening brief on the applicability of Wende to the initial appeal of an MDO commitment. After counsel for appellant filed a supplemental opening brief addressing the Wende issue, the Attorney General filed a respondent's brief, to which appellant has filed a reply brief.
The Opinion in Sade C.
In Sade C., the California Supreme Court granted review (Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771, 920 P.2d 716.)
In defining the constitutional role of an appointed attorney for an indigent defendant, Anders held that the (Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, fn. omitted.)
California expanded on the demands of Anders in Wende. (Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 980-981, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771, 920 P.2d 716.) The United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Wende procedure in Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756.
The court in Sade C., an opinion by Justice Stanley Mosk, undertook an exhaustive analysis of Anders and other relevant United States Supreme Court authority before concluding that Anders and Wende do not apply to civil appeals, such as termination of a parent's rights to custody of a child. The court noted that, in general, Wende had been limited to criminal appeals, although there was some inconsistency:
(Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 962, fn. 2, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771, 920 P.2d 716.)
The opinion in Sade C. first looked to determine whether Anders applied to an indigent parent's appeal of an order adversely affecting custody rights of a child or status as a parent. (Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 965, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771, 920 P.2d 716.) The court distilled four conclusions from its review of Anders and its progeny. (Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 977, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771, 920 P.2d 716.) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Torres, C048309.
...review in Ben C. and the case is currently pending (review granted September 15, 2004, S126664). On March 23, 2005, in People v. Smith (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 896, Division Five of the Second Appellate District of the Court of Appeal, decided that the Anders/Wende procedures were inapplicabl......
-
People v. Jackson, A117745 (Cal. App. 1/29/2008)
...of appeal decision is now unreported, we have doubts that cases such as the instant one are subject to Wende review. In People v. Smith (2005) 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 (Smith), review granted July 13, 2005, S133593, our colleagues in Division Five of the Second District addressed precisely this is......