Filed 2/17/23

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. KELLY SUNDBERG,
Defendant and Appellant. D080500

(Super. Ct. No. SCD132737)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Melinda J. Lasater, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Paul R. Kraus , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Kelly Sundbe rg appeals from an order denying his application for outpatient placement pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.2

. 1 In 199 9 , S undberg was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) following a criminal trial, resulting in his commitment to a state hospita l. Over two decades later, Sundberg applied to be discharged from the hospital and

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise designated.2 placed under community supervision on an outpatient basis , but the trial court denied his application. He now appeals from that order. On appeal, Sundberg’ s appointed cou nsel raises no arguable issues , but

asserts that the procedures set forth in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) apply to this appeal. Following existing authority, we conclude that the review required by Anders and Wende do es not apply in this appeal. We offered Sundberg the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he declined to do so. Accordingly, in the absence of any arguable issues to review, we dismiss this appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 199 7 , Sundberg was charged with multiple offenses, including attempted murder. Sundberg was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and, in 199 9 , he was committed to a state hospital. In 2021, S undberg petitioned the court to be released from the hospital and plac ed under community supervision on an outpatient basis in a conditional release program (CONREP) as part of the process for restoration of his sanity pursuant to section 1026.2. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the petition. Sundberg appeals from that
order. DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent Sundberg on appeal. His counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. He informed this court that he found no ar guable issues and set out the applicable facts and
the law. We invited Sundberg to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf
and he declined to do so.3 Counsel notes the Supreme Court ’ s decision in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 ( Ben C

. ), which held that the Anders/Wende independent review procedures do not apply to civil commitments pursuant
to the Lanterman

- Petris

- Short (LPS) Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 5000 et seq.). ( Ben C ., supra , at p. 539.) In People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App .4th 1422,
the court relied on Ben C . and held that Anders/Wende review is not required in an appeal from an order denying an application for restoration of sanity pursuant to section 1026.2 filed by an NGI committee. ( Dobson, supra, at pp.
1435

- 1436.) Although counsel asks this court to conduct an Anders/ Wende review,
Dobson directly addresses the situation present here and we agree with its
conclusion that this appeal is not subject to Anders/Wende review. Appointed counsel followed the procedures ou tlined in Ben C . by filing a brief informing the court that he found no arguable issues and setting out the applicable facts and the law. ( Ben C ., supra , 40 Cal.4th at p. 544.) Sundberg was provided with a copy of the brief and informed of his right to f ile a supplemental brief. Sundberg did not elect to do so

. Because no reasonably arguable issues have been raised by counsel or appellant, we dismiss the appeal. ( Dobson , supra , 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1439.)4 DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

HUFF MAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, J.

DO, J.