Court Opinion

ID: 9881449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-02 18:03:31.418475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:08:50.931508
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/2/23 P. v. W.P. CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E080620

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. FVI010342)

 W.P.,                                                                   OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Lorenzo R.

Balderrama, Judge. Affirmed.

         Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

         Defendant and appellant W.P. appeals from the trial court’s denial of her petition

for restoration of sanity under Penal Code section 1026.2 (the Petition). For the reasons

set forth post, we affirm the judgment.

                                                             1
                              STATEMENT OF THE CASE

       On October 19, 2021, defendant filed the Petition contending that she was no

longer a danger “due to a mental defect, disease or disorder and that she should be fully

restored to sanity, released from CONREP [Conditional Release Program], and

unconditionally released into the community.”

       On December 8, 2022, a trial on the Petition commenced. Both parties presented

most of their evidence via exhibits. Moreover, defendant read a statement to the court.

On December 12, 2022, in a minute order, the court wrote: “Court denies [the Petition]

for release from outpatient treatment. Court orders MHM [the administrator of

CONREP] to provide the court with an annual report by 05/23/23. Court orders exhibits

to be returned to the parties.”

       On January 31, 2023, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

                                  STATEMENT OF FACTS

       At the hearing on the Petition, defendant “[did] not wish to testify.” Instead, she

read a prepared statement “into the record.”

       Defendant acknowledged that she was committed to Patton State Hospital for

mental health treatment based on a crime she committed in 2000. Defendant stated that

she had participated in hundreds of sessions with various treatment providers and had

worked on issues including understanding her mental disorder and criminal behavior.

       In addition to these one-on-one meetings, defendant also attended hundreds of

group therapy sessions. She completed two drug relapse prevention programs, each of

which lasted six months. She also attended and continues to attend Alcoholics

                                               2
Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) on a regular basis. Defendant

completed a comprehensive recovery wellness action plan and claimed: “I have been

diligent in understanding my mental illness and learned throughout the years how to

recognize my warning signs, triggers, and how to utilize my coping skills.”

       Defendant then stated: “Your Honor, I have learned how important my

medication is and how vital abstaining from alcohol and drugs are. I have learned from

decompensation in 2009 that if I stop my medication and/or use alcohol and drugs that I

could become dangerous to others, which is not what I want to ever happen again. It may

be odd to say that I am thankful for that decompensation, but I learned how vital it is in

continuing my medication and abstaining from drugs and alcohol and continuing

treatment is.”

       Defendant claimed not to have suffered any symptoms of her mental disorders in

13 and a half years. She stated she would continue to attend AA, NA, and therapy even

after her discharge, because she wanted to remain safe and in the community. She stated

that she had family and friends who would support her, and had arranged for a bridge

prescription to keep her medication going while she moved to Alabama. She located a

psychiatrist in Alabama who would take care of providing her medication going forward.

She had also located places to attend AA and NA meetings near her intended new home

in Alabama.

       Defendant expressed remorse for what she did and stated she understood what she

put her victim, his family, and the victim’s secretary through on the day she committed

                                             3
her crime. She apologized to the court and the people for her behavior and asked the

judge to restore her to sanity and give her another chance at an independent life.

       Defendant submitted exhibits with the court documenting her AA/NA attendance

sheets, her ongoing participation in treatment programs, prescriptions to ensure

medication coverage during any transition, certificates documenting defendant

completing treatment programs, detailed relapse prevention plans created for defendant,

and investigator reports from the public defenders office containing numerous statements

from different individuals in support of defendant.

       The exhibits submitted by the prosecutor included a certified copy of defendant’s

record of arrests and prosecutions, reports prepared by social workers giving insight into

defendant’s mental health issues and diagnoses, a report on defendant’s suitability for

sanity restoration based on her psychological evaluations, criminal, physical health and

mental health histories, reports on defendant’s diagnosis for borderline personality

disorder and defendant’s lack of acceptance and insight into the disorder, reports

analyzing the unfeasibility of defendant’s postrelease plans, notes from individual

therapy sessions, and other documents providing information, such as defendant’s

prescriptions.

       After defendant read her statement to the court, the trial court asked, “Counsel, is

the matter submitted on the documents that you have offered to the Court?” Both defense

counsel and the prosecutor responded “yes.”

       The prosecutor then asked if he could make a brief comment, and then stated:

                                              4
         “I think we have exhibits and we have [defense counsel’s] exhibits, and I know

you read them carefully. I believe once you read the exhibits, you’ll notice that there

appears to be only one issue that the parties disagree. All the rest, I think both parties

pretty much agree, and the issue—appears to me to be the only issue is the diagnosis of

the borderline personality disorder. CONREP believes that [defendant] has been

diagnosed, and my understanding is that [defendant] disagrees with that diagnosis. I

believe it really comes down to that issue, whether that diagnosis is in existence or—or

not and, if it is, how it affects the fact of whether [defendant] has been restored or not.

[¶] With that, submit.”

                                        DISCUSSION

         After defendant appealed, and upon her request, this court appointed counsel to

represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25

Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the

case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and has requested this court to

undertake a review of the entire record. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified the

following issue to assist the court in its search of the record for error:

         “If this court concludes that Wende/Anders procedures are not applicable to SVP

cases, appellate counsel and this court must comply with the procedures outlined in Ben

C.[1]”

         1 In re Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529.

                                               5
       Thereafter, counsel identified issues of sufficiency of the evidence, Sanchez2 error,

and inadmissible hearsay as potential issues on appeal.

       After defense counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende, supra, we offered

defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and she has not done so.

       Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have

independently reviewed the record for potential error. We are satisfied that defendant’s

attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue

exists. (Id. at p. 126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)

                                        DISPOSITION

       The judgment is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                          MILLER
                                                                                           J.

We concur:

McKINSTER
                       Acting P. J.

CODRINGTON
                                   J.

       2 People v. Sanchez (2016) 64 Cal.4th 665.

                                             6