People v. Lamaire CA2/6

Discussion Because the instant appeal is from an OMHD commitment proceeding rather than a first appeal as of right from a criminal conviction, appellant is not entitled to our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. (See Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 537-539; Taylor, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 312.) He is, however, entitled to appellate consideration of any contentions raised in his supplemental brief. (See People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232.) In his supplemental brief, appellant contends he is not a “substantial risk to others.” He contends that if he was a “danger to the community, [he] would be a danger to this community.” But Dr. Aponte testified that appellant remained a substantial danger because he was not in remission, his past patterns

2 involved a lack of violence in custody, and his history of significant violence involved the same types of delusions he was continuing to experience. As such, appellant’s contentions are meritless. Disposition The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

BALTODANO, J.

3 Barry T. Labarbera, Judge Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo ______________________________

Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.