Court Opinion

ID: 9899026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 19:04:17.985723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:19.245269
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/15/23 P. v. Vasquez CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE,                                                    B326592

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                             (Los Angeles County Super Ct.
                                                               Nos. BA509575, ZM075995)
         v.

GABRIEL VASQUEZ,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Francis B. Bennett, Judge. Dismissed.
         James M. Crawford, under appointment by Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance by Respondent.

                              __________________________
       Defendant Gabriel Vasquez filed a notice of appeal after the
trial court sent him for a mental competence evaluation. We
construe defendant’s appeal as one from the trial court’s
subsequent order finding him incompetent to stand trial under
Penal Code section 1368 and committing him to the Department
of State Hospitals. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. (a) [listing the
latter, but not the former, as an appealable order].) As best we
can tell from the record, defendant remains committed, with his
next court date of December 8, 2023.
       Defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief setting forth
the facts of this case and asking this court to review the record to
determine if there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file
a supplemental brief within 30 days of his counsel’s opening brief.
That time has lapsed, and he has filed no brief.
       Our Supreme Court has not spoken directly on the issue of
whether Wende review applies to Penal Code section 1368
incompetency commitment proceedings such as these. In
Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, the court held
that Wende review is not required for appeals in Lanterman-
Petris-Short Act conservatorship proceedings. (Id. at pp. 538-
543.) People v. Blanchard (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1020, 1024-
1025, extended the holding in Ben C. to certain incompetency
commitment proceedings. Defendant’s counsel urges that
Blanchard was wrongly decided and is distinguishable from this
case because Blanchard’s Penal Code section 1368 commitment
came after probation revocation proceedings had commenced. In
contrast, the commitment here was before trial. Without
reaching the issue presented in Blanchard, we have conducted an

                                 2
independent review of the record in this case.
      Having reviewed the record, we agree with counsel that
there are no arguable issues on appeal. The trial court’s
determination that defendant was not competent to stand trial
was supported by substantial evidence in the form of an expert’s
report. The commitment ordered by the court is authorized by
law and supported by CONREP’s recommendation. Defendant
was represented by able counsel.
                         DISPOSITION
      The appeal is dismissed.

                                         RUBIN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:

                 BAKER, J.

                 KIM, J.

                                3