Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Michael Geoffrey Pitt

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)


May 11, 2011

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
MICHAEL GEOFFREY PITT, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

(Super. Ct. No. 94F10092)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease, Acting P. J.

P. v. Pitt

CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Appellant Michael Geoffrey Pitt was committed to the state mental hospital in 1996 for a maximum term of 15 years to life, after being found not guilty by reason of insanity to criminal charges of murder. On March 13, 2007, appellant filed a petition pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.2 seeking restoration of sanity. After a hearing, the trial court denied his petition. Appellant appeals the denial of his petition.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case, raising no issues, and requesting this court review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Appellant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from appellant. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the appeal.

As explained in People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, Wende review is not required in an appeal from the denial of a petition for restoration of sanity. Appointed appellate counsel having found no arguable issues and appellant having not filed a supplemental brief, dismissal is appropriate.

The appeal is dismissed.

We concur: HULL, J. MURRAY, J.

20110511

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.