Filed 12/11/13 P. v. Howard CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. BRANDON LORENZO HOWARD, Defendant and Appellant. D063821

(Super. Ct. Nos. SCD213029, SCS218537)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superi or Court of San Diego County, Peter C. Deddeh, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Laurel M. Nelson, under appo intment by the Court of Appeal. No appearance by Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND On September 5, 2008, Brandon Lorenz o Howard pled guilty in case number SCD213029 to a violation of Penal Code sec tion 69, resisting an order of an executive officer, and admitted a strike prior conviction. This case arose from an incident in January when a deputy sheriff at the San Diego County jail in structed appellant to return2 to his cell and when the deputy reached out to escort him back to his cell, appellant punched the deputy in the eye. On June 16, 2008, appella nt pled guilty in case number SCS218537 to a violation of Penal Code secti on 69. This case arose from an incident in March when appellant, who was in a hold ing cell awaiting transport to a court proceeding, swung at and hit a de puty sheriff above his eye. In October 2008, appellant was sentenced to two years 8 months in state prison in case number SCD213029 and to a concurrent term of two years in case number SCS218537. After serving his sentence, and while on parole, appellant was hospitalized in May 2010 at Atascadero State Hospital as a mentally disorder ed offender (MDO) pursuant to Penal Code section 2962. He was conditionally released to San Diego County in April 2012 and shor tly thereafter was ad mitted to Patton State Hospital as an MDO. At the time of his admission, appella nt's parole termination date was May 3,
2013. In January 2013, the District Attorney's office filed a petition to extend appellant's involuntary treatment as an MDO from May 3, 2013 to May 3, 2014 pursuant to Penal Code sections 2970 and 2972. On March 29, 2013 appellant executed a declaration agreeing to an extension of hi s commitment as an MDO for one year to May 3, 2014. In that declaration he waived hi s right to a jury trial, to subpoena and cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence on his own behalf, to be pres ent at all proceedings, and to be examined by two independent doctors. On March 29, the court ordered that appellant's involuntary tr eatment be continued.3 ANALYSIS Appointed appellate counsel has file d a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no ar gument for reversal concerning the order continuing appellant's involuntary commitment as an MDO and requests this court to review the commitment proc eedings in accord with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. In maki ng this request, counsel notes that in People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, th e Second District considered whether the Wende/Anders procedures were applicable to MDO commitment cases and concluded they were not. (Petition for review denied by the California Supreme Court on May 21, 2008, S162026.) Counse l also acknowledges that in In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, our Supreme Court declined to apply Wende/Anders procedures to orders adversely affecting custody rights or parental status, and in In re Conservatorship of Ben
C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 ( Ben C. ) held that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 5000 et seq.) conservato rship proceedings are not subject to Wende/Anders review. Appellant's counsel recognized the Taylor court relied on the reasoning in these two Supreme Court cases in reachi ng its holding. We agree with People v. Taylor and decline to apply Wende/Anders procedures to this MDO case. In accordance with reco mmendations set forth in Ben C., supra , 40 Cal.4th at page 544, appellant counsel has prepared a brief setting forth the facts and the law, and has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to file a supplemental brief. Our court has also provid ed appellant with a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to file a suppleme ntal brief. Appellant responded with a two-4 page letter which raises factual questions co ncerning a blanket and camera he asserts are relevant in case number SCD213029. Ho wever, he does not identify any issues concerning the involuntar y commitment proceeding. Because appellant has failed to raise an ar guable issue on appeal from an order of recommitment, we decline to retain this case as is permitted by Ben C. and dismiss the appeal. ( Ben C., supra , 40 Cal.4th at p. 544; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 501.)
DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.

HALLER, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:

M C DONALD, J.

M C INTYRE, J.