Court Opinion

ID: 9351872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-03 23:02:17.851014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:04:00.543322
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/3/23 P. v. Villaneda 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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,                                                     B319740

        Plaintiff and Respondent,                               (Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct.
        v.                                                      No. ZM005312)

ROBERT VILLANEDA,

        Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Ronald O. Kaye, Judge. Dismissed.
     Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
       In 1987, Robert Villaneda (defendant) attacked his father
with an ax and a pick, wounding him in the head, back, and
shoulder. At the time of the attack, defendant was paranoid
(believing his family was conspiring against him) and
experiencing command auditory hallucinations to attack his
father. Defendant was tried on a charge of attempted murder,
found not guilty by reason of insanity, and committed to Patton
State Hospital (Patton) in 1989.
       In 2003, defendant was discharged from Patton into a
conditional release program (Program). For the next 13 years,
defendant remained in various Program outpatient facilities. In
2016, defendant displayed increased mental health symptoms
and bizarre behavior, despite a number of adjustments to his
medication. (Among other things, defendant accused another
Program client of clogging the facility’s community toilet and
causing plumbing problems at the homes of defendant’s brother
and one of the facility’s staff members.) In view of defendant’s
psychiatric decompensation and paranoid ideation, and the
resulting danger to the Program community, defendant was
readmitted to Patton.
       In 2021, the District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles
filed a petition to extend defendant’s commitment at Patton (Pen.
Code, § 1026.5(b)). After defendant waived his right to a jury, the
trial court held a bench trial where three witnesses, all experts,
testified. The two experts for the People, one of whom had
evaluated defendant on two prior occasions (in 2018 and 2020),
found defendant still suffered from the same symptoms of mental
illness as at the time of the commitment offense and, despite
decades of therapy, possessed “little” to “no insight” into his
illness, risk of violence, and need for treatment. Defendant’s

                                2
expert, who had also previously assessed defendant twice before
(in 2018 and 2020), opined that in view of the absence of any
violent incidents since the attack on his father, defendant’s
mental disorder was in remission. In light of defendant’s history
of hospitalization, release, decompensation, and
re-hospitalization, and in light of testimony that defendant was
still suffering from delusions, the trial court granted the petition
and ordered defendant’s commitment extended for a period of two
years.
       Defendant appealed and this court appointed counsel to
represent him. After examining the record, counsel filed an
opening brief raising no issues. On August 22, 2022, this court
advised defendant he had 30 days to personally submit any
contentions or issues he wanted us to consider. We received no
response.
       We shall dismiss the appeal accordingly. As counsel
appropriately acknowledges in his opening brief, People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) procedures do not apply to appeals
from extensions of civil commitments of persons found not guilty
by reason of insanity. (People v. Martinez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th
1226, 1240; accord, People v. Luper (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1077,
1083.) Although an appellate court may retain an appeal where
Wende review is not mandatory (Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007)
40 Cal.4th 529, 544, n. 7), the circumstances here do not warrant
such a course of action.

                                 3
                        DISPOSITION
     The appeal is dismissed.

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                       BAKER, J.
We concur:

     RUBIN, P. J.

     MOOR, J.

                            4