Skip to content
Name: People v. Sundberg
Case #: D080500
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/17/2023
Summary

Anders/Wende review was not required in an appeal from an order denying NGI’s petition to be released from the state hospital and placed in CONREP as part of the process for restoration of his sanity. In 2021, Sundberg, an NGI, petitioned the court to be released from the state 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 Penal Code section 1026.2. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the petition. Sundberg appealed. Appointed counsel on appeal raised no arguable issues, but argued that the procedures set forth in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 applied to the appeal. The Court of Appeal offered Sundberg the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he declined to do so. Held: Appeal dismissed. In People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, the court 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 relied on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529. The court here agreed with Dobson. Appointed counsel followed the procedures outlined in Ben C. Because no reasonably arguable issues were raised by counsel or appellant, the court dismissed the appeal.

 

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D080500.PDF