(Super. Ct. No. SCCRF011693)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , Acting P. J.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
This is an appeal by defendant Melissa Gay Greenhagen from an order of the Siskiyou County Superior Court recommitting her to Patton State Hospital as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) pursuant to the Mentally Disordered Offender Act (Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq.) (MDOA). We dismiss the appeal.
On October 27, 2009, the district attorney filed a petition for continued involuntary treatment of defendant as an MDO. It was alleged that defendant had previously been committed as an MDO after having been convicted of five arson-related counts and was presently housed at Patton State Hospital. Her commitment was to terminate February 16, 2010.
On January 15, 2010, following a court trial, the court found that defendant has a severe mental disorder that was not in remission or could not be kept in remission without treatment, and by reason of her severe mental disorder she represented a substantial danger of physical harm to others. She was ordered recommitted to Patton State Hospital for one year, to terminate February 16, 2011.
On June 30, 2010, appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), stating that he has reviewed the record on appeal and has been unable to identify any specific issues arguable on appeal. Counsel states that he has informed defendant of the nature of the Wende brief and that she may request to file a supplemental brief if she so chooses. To date we have had no communication from defendant. Counsel requests that, pursuant to Wende, we review the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
In People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, at page 312, the court held that Wende review did not apply to MDO recommitments, but instead was required only for "'appointed appellate counsel's representation of an indigent criminal defendant in his first appeal as of right.' [Citation.]" Taylor observed that pursuant to Penal Code section 2972 subdivision (a), that MDOA proceedings were expressly defined as civil in nature (ibid.), and that the decisions of the California Supreme Court in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, and In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, compelled the conclusion that Wende review procedures were not applicable to post-conviction commitment proceedings under the MDOA.*fn1 (People v. Taylor, supra, 160 Cal.App. 4th at p. 312.)
ROBIE , J.