Court Opinion

ID: 9352337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-05 19:02:27.621755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:01:01.198162
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/5/23 P. v. Pelfrey CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C095660

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 07F00528)

           v.

 JACOB WAYNE PELFREY,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Jacob Wayne Pelfrey appeals from the civil commitment order entered
after court trial and committing him to the Department of State Hospitals under the
Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.). Appointed
counsel filed an opening brief invoking the independent judicial review procedures set
forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We dismiss the appeal because Wende
review on appeal is not available in this civil commitment proceeding.

                                                             1
                                     BACKGROUND
       In 2007, defendant pled no contest to one count of felonious assault with intent to
commit rape. (Pen. Code, § 220.) The trial court sentenced defendant to two years in
state prison.
       The People petitioned to commit defendant as a sexually violent predator in 2008.
The trial court ordered defendant to be detained in a secure facility pending a probable
cause hearing. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss in 2009, arguing the People lacked
jurisdiction to file the petition. The trial court denied the motion. Following the denial,
defendant waived his right to a probable cause hearing, and the trial court ordered
defendant to be detained in a secure facility pending trial.
       After a court trial in 2022, the trial court sustained the petition and ordered
defendant committed to the Department of State Hospitals for an indeterminate term.
Defendant timely appealed.
                                       DISCUSSION
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to review the record
and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal, citing People v. Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a
supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30
days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
       We observed in People v. Kisling (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 288, 290 that, since the
proceedings under the SVPA are civil matters, they do not directly implicate Wende.
Applying the test set forth by our Supreme Court in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007)
40 Cal.4th 529, we further concluded the balance of interests weighs heavily against
applying Wende to appeals from SVPA proceedings, and dismissed the appeal there.
(Kisling, at pp. 291-292.)
       We recognize that Kisling involved an individual’s appeal from an order denying
his petition to be released from a commitment under the SVPA, whereas defendant’s

                                              2
current appeal is taken from an order committing him to the Department of State
Hospital’s custody under the SVPA. (See People v. Kisling, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p.
290.) Nonetheless, we find the principles discussed in Kisling applicable.
       Here, appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues on appeal,
defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. The case is therefore subject to dismissal.
(See Conservatorship of Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544 [appointed counsel’s brief
stating he or she has found no arguable issues on appeal provides an adequate basis for
the court to dismiss the appeal on its own motion].)
                                      DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                                     /s/
                                                 BOULWARE EURIE, J.

We concur:

    /s/
HULL, Acting P. J.

    /s/
EARL, J.

                                             3