Court Opinion

ID: 9841244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 18:04:35.760717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:32.708535
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/21/23 P. v. Wilson CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

    THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F085233
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. BF191035A)
                    v.

    CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL WILSON,                                                           OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Chad A. Louie,
Judge.
         Stephanie L. Gunther, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
         Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.
       Defendant Christopher Michael Wilson was charged with felony vandalism, but
was found incompetent to stand trial and was committed to the State Department of State
Hospitals (DSH). Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no error and asking the court to determine
whether there were any arguable issues on appeal. Defendant was afforded an
opportunity to submit a supplemental brief but failed to do so in the time allotted.
We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no error. We affirm.
                           PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       On July 27, 2022, the Kern County District Attorney filed a complaint charging
defendant with felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)).1 The complaint
further alleged that defendant had suffered three prior “strike” convictions within the
meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)).
       On August 12, 2022, defendant’s trial counsel expressed a doubt regarding
defendant’s competency within the meaning of sections 1367 and 1368. In response, the
trial court ordered the proceedings suspended and two mental health professionals
appointed to assess defendant’s competency. On September 8, 2022, the court notified a
licensed psychologist and a clinical psychologist of their appointments. On
September 22, 2022, the licensed psychologist submitted a report recommending that the
court find defendant was not competent to stand trial. On September 26, 2022, the
clinical psychologist submitted a report making the same recommendation.
       On October 4, 2022, the trial court found defendant incompetent to stand trial and
referred the matter to Kern Behavioral Health and Recovery Services for placement and
medication recommendations (§§ 1369, subd (a), 1370, subd. (b), 1370.01, subd. (b)).
       On October 12, 2022, a psychiatrist employed by Kern Behavioral Health and
Recovery Services submitted a report recommending that defendant be treated at a DSH

1      All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                             2.
inpatient facility with involuntary psychotropic medication for unspecified schizophrenia
and other psychotic disorder with the goal of restoring trial competency. The psychiatrist
opined that a substantial likelihood existed that defendant would be restored to
competency with the recommended psychotropic medication and that he could not be
restored to competency without the recommended medication. He further opined that
there was no medically indicated alternative treatment to address defendant’s mental
health condition.
       On October 20, 2022, the community program director at Kern Behavioral Health
and Recovery Services recommended that defendant participate in the restoration to trial
competency training inpatient program with DSH.
       On October 25, 2022, the trial court considered the two reports, ordered defendant
to participate in the restoration to trial competency training inpatient program at DSH,
and ordered defendant be involuntarily treated with psychotropic medication. (§§ 1370,
1370.01.) The court set the maximum time to restore defendant to competency at
two years. While the court did not address conduct credit on the record, the minute order
from the proceeding indicated that “[d]efendant [was] to receive no credit for time
served.”
       On November 4, 2022, defendant sent a document to the clerk of the court who
deemed the document a notice of appeal.
       On April 18, 2023, defendant’s appellate counsel sent a letter to the trial court,
requesting that it correct the error in denying defendant presentence custody credits for
the time he spent in jail and noting that the trial court retained the jurisdiction to do so
(§ 1237.1).
       On July 11, 2023, after defendant was apparently restored to competency, the trial
court struck defendant’s three prior strike convictions and sentenced him pursuant to a
plea agreement as follows: on count 1, the court suspended imposition of sentence and
granted defendant probation for a period of two years with the requirement that he serve

                                               3.
one year in county jail. The court also granted defendant credit for time served of
349 actual days credit and 348 days good and work time credit, which resulted in the jail
sentence being deemed served in full.
                              FACTUAL BACKGROUND2
       On or about July 14, 2022, a credit union security guard was notified that
defendant was throwing rocks at a car parked in the credit union’s parking lot. The
security guard approached defendant and defendant “became violent and began cursing at
the security guard.” Defendant moved toward the security guard despite being warned
that he would be pepper sprayed. The security guard pepper sprayed defendant and the
Bakersfield police were called.
       When Bakersfield police officers arrived, defendant told them that he “and his
friends were ‘tossing rocks at one another.’ He acknowledged that he might have
accidentally hit a vehicle [with a rock].”
                                       DISCUSSION
       As noted above, defendant’s counsel filed a Wende brief identifying no basis for
relief and asking that we review the record to determine whether there were any arguable
issues on appeal. Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude that there is
no arguable issue on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–443.)
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

2      In the record before us, the only summary of defendant’s underlying offense can
be found in one of the section 1368 evaluations. That evaluation summarized the police
report generated in connection with defendant’s offense. Our factual summary is based
on the facts set out in that evaluation.

                                             4.