People v. Herbert CA1/2
Opinion
Opinion
facts and asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). I. Appellant’s counsel acknowledges that Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.) held that Wende and Anders3 do not apply to appeals in proceedings such as this that are civil in nature,4 and that due process and equal protection requirements also do not compel application of Wende/Anders procedures to Lanterman- Petris-Short Act proceedings, and that the Ben C. court rejected a request to extend those procedures under the court’s inherent power to declare the rules of California appellate procedure. Counsel argues, nonetheless, that “the California Supreme Court would, and should, reach a different result” in this incompetency case because the underlying criminal case is still pending. After describing the facts and requesting Wende review, appellant’s brief advances two legal “arguments.” The first is that “DUE PROCESS
REQUIRES THAT WENDE/ANDERS PROCEDURES BE APPLIED TO AN APPEAL
FROM AN INCOPETENCY [sic] COMMITMENT AND RELATED INVOLUNTARY MEDICATION ORDER” and the second is that, IF THIS COURT CONCLUDES THAT