People v. Shamoun CA4/1

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Shamoun on appeal. His counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel did not identify any arguable issues but nevertheless requested we exercise our discretion to independently review the record on appeal. Shamoun was provided with a copy of the brief and informed of his right to file a supplemental brief. He has not timely responded. Counsel notes the Supreme Court’s decision in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.), which held that the Anders/Wende independent review procedures do not apply to civil commitments pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 5000 et seq.). (Ben C., supra, at p. 539.) Counsel attempts to distinguish this appeal from the holding in Ben C., since unlike the conservatorship proceedings at issue in Ben C., this appeal stems from section 1026.5 civil commitment extension proceedings. However, in Martinez, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th 1226, the court reviewed Ben C. and other relevant cases and held that “due process does not require an appellate court to conduct an independent review of the appellate record [applying Anders/Wende procedures] for…