People v. C.G. CA4/2

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant C.G. was convicted of robbery (Pen. Code1, §211) and

was sentenced to prison. The Board of Prison Terms (BPT) determined that she met the

criteria for being committed as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) and required her to

accept treatment as a condition of parole. Defendant filed a petition pursuant to section

2966 challenging the BPT’s determination that she be committed. The court found

defendant met the criteria of an MDO and ordered her to remain committed to the State

Department of Mental Health and continue receiving treatment.

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

25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), setting

forth a statement of the case and a statement of the facts, and advising that he has found

no arguable issues. Counsel argues that due process requires this court to undertake an

independent review of the appellate record to determine whether this appeal presents any

arguable issues. (Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) {AOB 8,

37-42} However, we have no obligation to independently review the record for error.

(People…