Filed 1/23/15 P. v. Valencia CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EDWARD GILBERT VALENCIA III,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B255191

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. KA041527)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Bruce F. 

Marrs, Judge. Affirmed.

Paul R. Kraus, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________
2

Edward Gilbert Valencia III was found not guilty by reason of insanity of three 

counts of arson in violation of Penal Code1section 451, subdivision (b), and two counts 

of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1). Valencia 

was committed to California Department of Mental Health on June 22, 2001 and

transferred from Metropolitan State Hospital to a community outpatient treatment facility 

in 2004. In 2006, he was transferred to a nonresidential forensic community treatment. 

On January 28, 2013, the trial court approved the revocation of Valencia’s outpatient 

status, and Valencia was readmitted to Metropolitan State Hospital. Valencia appealed

the revocation of his outpatient status, and we affirmed. (People v. Valencia (Sept. 23, 

2014, B250598) [nonpub. opn.].)

On March 13, 2014, the department of state hospitals filed a report dated 

November 20, 2013, which concluded that Valencia “does not present a danger to the 

health and safety of himself or others,” and “continued treatment at Metropolitan State 

Hospital is not recommended at this time as he is ready for community outpatient 

treatment in a less restrictive environment.” Also filed March 13, 2014 was a 

February 13, 2014 report from the community program director of the Gateways 

CONREP (Conditional Release Program) Administration. The report concluded that 

Valencia continued to overestimate his level of functioning and his psychiatric stability, 

but underestimated his high-risk behaviors and his potential for future dangerousness, and 

“Mr. Valencia remains a danger to the health and safety of others and as such, should be 

retained and treated at the state hospital.” (Underline and boldface omitted.)

Valencia was present at the hearing on March 13, 2014. The parties submitted on 

the reports and argued the matter. The trial court noted that the reports gave conflicting 

recommendations, and ordered Valencia to continue to be confined and treated at 

Metropolitan State Hospital.

Valencia filed this timely appeal. We appointed counsel to represent him, and 

after examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
3

this court to independently review the record. On November 20, 2014, we advised 

Valencia he had 30 days in which to personally submit any contentions or issues he 

wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response.

Section 1603, subdivisions (a) (1) and (2), provides that any person found not 

guilty by reason of insanity of a charge enumerated in section 1601, including section 

451, subdivision (a) (arson) may be placed on outpatient status if the director of the state 

hospital advises the court that the defendant would no longer be a danger to himself and 

others and would benefit from outpatient status, and if the director of the community 

program also advises the court that the defendant will benefit from that status. As the 

court noted, the community program director advised the court to the contrary, and so the 

second condition was not satisfied.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Valencia’s counsel has 

fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly 

(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

JOHNSON, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

BENDIX, J.*

 

*

Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant 

to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.