1

Filed 5/4/22 P. v. Shields CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KYLE RAY SHIELDS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A162663

 (Contra Costa County

 Super. Ct. Nos. 1-195001-3;

 1-195176-3; 1-195558-2)

Kyle Shields appeals from an order finding him incompetent to stand 

trial and committing him to the State Department of State Hospitals (DSH) 

under Penal Code section 1370.1 Shields’s appointed counsel filed a brief that 

raises no issue for appeal and asks this court to conduct an independent 

review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 

(Wende). We conclude that Wende review is not required here and that the 

issues Shields raises in a pro se supplemental brief lack merit. We therefore 

affirm. 

BACKGROUND

In January 2021, the People charged Shields with second degree 

robbery (§ 211) and giving false information to a peace officer (§ 148.9, subd. 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 

otherwise indicated.
2

(a)). At that time, Shields also had pending charges in two separate cases for 

arson of a structure or forest (§ 451, subd. (c)) and assault by means of force

likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), with an 

enhancement for having inflicted great bodily injury upon another person 

(§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).

Within the next couple of months, the court declared a doubt as to 

Shields’s mental competence in all three pending criminal matters. The court 

suspended criminal proceedings and, pursuant to section 1369, subdivision 

(a), designated two mental health professionals to evaluate Shields’s “mental 

disorder, if any, [and his] ability or inability to understand the nature of the 

criminal proceedings or assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a 

rational manner as a result of a mental disorder.” The parties stipulated that 

the court could decide the issue of Shields’s mental competency based solely 

upon the reports of the two mental health professionals, Dr. Justine M. 

Schmollinger, Ph.D., J.D., and Dr. Alexis Smith-Baumann, Psy.D.

Dr. Schmollinger and Dr. Smith-Baumann submitted their reports to 

the court in March 2021.2 At the competency hearing later that month, the 

court found that Shields was incompetent to stand trial based on those 

reports, and it referred the matter to Contra Costa County Department of 

Mental Health’s conditional release program (CONREP) for a placement 

evaluation.

In April 2021, pursuant to the CONREP report, the court ordered 

Shields committed to the DSH for a maximum term of two years. Shields 

appeals from that order and the trial court’s finding of incompetency. 

2 The reports of Dr. Schmollinger and Dr. Smith-Baumann have been 

filed under seal as confidential information. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

8.47(c).) Accordingly, we will not divulge the contents of those reports. 
3

DISCUSSION

I. Wende Review Does Not Apply to this Appeal 

Wende requires an appellate court independently to review the record 

in an indigent criminal defendant’s first appeal as a matter of right if 

appointed counsel represents that he or she has found no arguable issues. 

(Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 535 (Ben C.).) But as 

Shields’s appointed counsel acknowledges, a defendant is not entitled to 

Wende review in incompetency commitment proceedings. A different panel of 

this court held in People v. Blanchard (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1020

(Blanchard) that an appeal from a finding of mental incompetency and an 

order for commitment is not a criminal defendant’s first appeal as a matter of 

right, and that due process does not otherwise require independent review in

commitment proceedings. (Id. at pp. 1024–1025.)3

Blanchard relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ben C., supra, 40 

Cal.4th 529, which held that Wende review does not apply to civil 

commitments under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, 

§ 5000 et seq.). (Blanchard, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 1025.) In appeals 

from incompetency commitment orders, appointed counsel should follow the 

process identified in Ben C. by filing a brief setting forth the relevant facts 

and law and informing the court that he or she has found no arguable issue 

to be pursued on appeal. Such a brief provides an adequate basis for 

dismissal. (Blanchard, at pp. 1025–1026.) 

3 Appointed counsel urges us to reconsider our opinion in Blanchard. 

We decline to do so. Counsel’s argument for reconsideration is unsupported 

by legal authority.
4

Appointed counsel in this case has complied with the procedure set 

forth in Ben C. by filing a brief setting out the applicable facts and law and 

indicating he found no arguable issues to be pursued on appeal. He also has 

stated that he apprised Shields of his right to file a supplemental brief. 

We would dismiss the appeal in accordance with Ben C. and Blanchard 

except that Shields has filed a supplemental brief that raises issues with the 

trial court’s mental incompetency determination. An appellate court must 

address the specific contentions raised in a defendant’s supplemental brief in 

a Wende case and explain why they fail if they lack merit. (People v. Freeman

(2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 126, 134.) We do so here. 

II. Shields’s Supplemental Brief Provides No Basis for Reversal

In support of his argument that he is not mentally incompetent, 

Shields’s supplemental brief identifies several issues regarding the 

sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s incompetency 

determination. None of the contentions he raises is grounds for reversal.

A defendant is mentally incompetent if, because of a mental health or 

developmental disorder, he or she is unable to understand the nature of the 

criminal proceedings or to rationally assist counsel in the defense. (§ 1367, 

subd. (a).) An appellate court must uphold a trial court’s incompetency 

determination if it is supported by substantial evidence, viewing the evidence 

in the light most favorable to that determination. (People v. Kirvin (2014) 231 

Cal.App.4th 1507, 1514.) “Evidence is substantial if it is reasonable, credible,

and of solid value.” (People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 31.) 

In this case, the reports of Dr. Schmollinger and Dr. Smith-Baumann

constitute substantial evidence of Shields’s mental incompetency. The trial 

court appointed them under section 1369, subdivision (a), as the examining 

psychiatrists or licensed psychologists, and they have stated their opinions 
5

regarding Shields’s mental competency with particularity based on a review

of the relevant evidence and an examination of Shields. Thus, their reports 

satisfy the substantial evidence test as reasonable and credible evidence. 

(People v. Marshall, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 31.)

Shields fails to show that the trial court erred in finding him mentally 

incompetent based on those reports. First, he challenges as inaccurate some 

of the factual assertions made by Dr. Schmollinger and Dr. Smith-Baumann 

and the evidence they reviewed in forming their opinions, and he also argues 

that they failed to account for certain evidence. However, he does not cite to 

the record as support for those contentions, and, in any case, our review of 

the record does not reveal support for those contentions. 

Next, he attempts to show that he can understand the nature of the 

criminal proceedings against himself and assist counsel in his defense. But

we cannot reweigh evidence or reevaluate credibility. (People v. Albillar 

(2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60.) 

Shields also points out that there is no physical evidence of a mental 

disorder in this case. However, evidence of incompetence may include mental 

evaluations and other non-physical evidence. (In re Sims (2021) 67 

Cal.App.5th 762, 781–782.) It is not error for the court to determine mental 

competency based solely on the reports of the court-appointed psychiatrists 

where, as here, the parties so stipulate. (People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th

876, 903–905.)

Finally, Shields contends that Dr. Schmollinger and Dr. SmithBaumann did not inform him that they would disclose to the court 

information he provided them. But again, the record does not reveal any 

support for his contention. 
6

Even if we assume without deciding that Shields’s contentions have 

merit, he does not explain how he was prejudiced by those errors. Some of 

the errors he identifies are inconsequential to a mental incompetency 

determination. His other contentions, even if true, do not necessarily show 

that the trial court’s finding of mental incompetency is not supported by 

substantial evidence. In particular, he does not identify the inaccuracies he 

claims exist other than a minor detail in Dr. Smith-Baumann’s report. Thus,

this court cannot determine whether those inaccuracies are harmless. 

Shields is not entitled to relief absent a showing of prejudice. (F.P. v. Monier

(2017) 3 Cal.5th 1099, 1107–1108.)

DISPOSITION

The order finding Shields incompetent to stand trial and committing 

him to the DSH is affirmed.

TUCHER, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

PETROU, J.

RODRÍGUEZ, J.

People v. Shields (A162663)