Court Opinion

ID: 9372127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 21:02:22.590493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:33.204317
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/17/23

                        CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                               DIVISION ONE

                           STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,                                D080500

       Plaintiff and Respondent,

       v.                                  (Super. Ct. No. SCD132737)

KELLY SUNDBERG,

       Defendant and Appellant.

       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 Sundberg appeals from an order denying his application for

outpatient placement pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.2. 1 In 1999,
Sundberg was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) following a
criminal trial, resulting in his commitment to a state hospital. 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.
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 counsel 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 does 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 1997, Sundberg was charged with multiple offenses, including
attempted murder. Sundberg was found not guilty by reason of insanity,
and, in 1999, he was committed to a state hospital.
         In 2021, Sundberg petitioned the court to be released from the hospital
and placed 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 arguable 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.

                                         2
      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 outlined 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 file 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.)

                                       3
                                DISPOSITION

     The appeal is dismissed.

                                              HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, J.

DO, J.

                                     4