Court Opinion

ID: 9376456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-02 19:02:29.717734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:06.919732
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/2/23 P. v. Snyder 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                        (Shasta)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C096747

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. CRF22-219)

           v.

 JACOB CLINTON SNYDER,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Jacob Clinton Snyder filed an opening brief that
sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436.) We will exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review, but find no
arguable error in defendant’s favor, and affirm.

                                                             1
                                     BACKGROUND
       The prosecution charged defendant with two counts of child abuse (Pen. Code,
§ 273a, subd. (a)1; counts 1 and 2), one count of placing a boobytrap (§ 20110, subd. (a);
count 3), and one count of stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a); count 4). Defense counsel
declared a doubt as to defendant’s competency to stand trial, and the trial court suspended
the proceedings and appointed two mental health experts to evaluate defendant. Shortly
thereafter, defendant requested a new attorney under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d
118. After the hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s request.
       Defense counsel waived a jury trial on the issue of competency and the parties
submitted the matter on the expert reports. The experts agreed defendant was not
competent to stand trial, and the trial court made findings consistent with their
conclusions, then referred the matter to the Conditional Release Program (CONREP) for
its recommendation on placement. After reviewing the report, the court committed
defendant to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) under section 1370. The court
also found defendant could make decisions about his own antipsychotic medication but
stated defendant could later withdraw his consent and the matter could return to the court
for a hearing as to whether medication could be administered involuntarily.
       One month later, defendant filed a written Marsden motion. The trial court held a
hearing on the motion and denied it. Defendant also filed a written motion objecting to
the administration of antipsychotic drugs. In a written order, the court noted such
motions would typically need to be filed through counsel but interpreted defendant’s
motion as a withdrawal of his consent for the administration of antipsychotic medication.
The court directed its written order be served on the county jail and DSH so they could

1      Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                             2
inquire as to defendant’s consent; if defendant did not consent, the parties were instructed
to request a hearing with the court on the involuntary administration of medication.
       Defendant filed a notice of appeal challenging the decision committing defendant
to the DSH.
                                      DISCUSSION
       Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of
the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any
arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was
advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date
the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed
a supplemental brief.
       Whether the protections afforded by Wende and the United States Supreme
Court’s decision in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 apply to an appeal from an
order committing a defendant to the DSH is currently an unresolved question. Our
Supreme Court has not spoken on the issue. In People v. Blanchard (2019)
43 Cal.App.5th 1020, the court ruled Wende/Anders procedures do not apply to an appeal
from an order adjudicating a defendant incompetent to stand trial, and dismissed the
appeal. (Blanchard, at p. 1026.) Our Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 contains additional guidance on how appellate courts
should handle requests for Anders/Wende review when the matter being appealed is not a
criminal defendant’s first appeal of right. We need not resolve whether any of these
procedures apply here, however, because we will exercise our discretion to conduct an
independent review of the record, a practice specifically endorsed by Delgadillo.
       The trial court found the defendant mentally incompetent based on two expert
reports, both concluding that defendant lacked a specific understanding of his legal
circumstances and further lacked capacity to assist counsel in his defense. (§ 1367, subd.
(a); see People v. Wycoff (2021) 12 Cal.5th 58, 84.) Defendant failed to produce any

                                             3
contrary evidence. Meanwhile, the trial court denied defendant’s two Marsden motions,
as there was no basis to conclude that the defense attorney was providing inadequate
representation or that the attorney-client relationship had broken down. (People v.
Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118.) Finally, the trial court preserved the defendant’s right to
refuse anti-psychotropic medication and provided notice to the authorities. These orders
are supported by substantial evidence and authorized by law. Based on this independent
review of the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more
favorable to defendant.
                                     DISPOSITION
       The trial court’s order committing defendant to the Department of State Hospitals
is affirmed.

                                                     \s\                     ,
                                                 McADAM, J.*

       We concur:

           \s\          ,
       DUARTE, Acting P. J.

           \s\              ,
       KRAUSE, J.

*       Judge of the Yolo County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                             4