People v. Mayzes CA1/2 ( 2023 )

Filed 5/9/23 P. v. Mayzes CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
A163871
Respondent,
v. (Contra Costa County
TOMAS MAYZES, Super. Ct. No. 5-192132-9,
2-333648-4, 2-334204-5)
Defendant and
Appellant.
Tomas Mayzes appeals from orders finding him not competent to stand
trial and committing him to the Department of State Hospitals pursuant to
Penal Code section 1370 et seq.1 His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief
setting forth the applicable facts and law pursuant to Conservatorship of
Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.) and People v. Blanchard (2019)
43 Cal.App.5th 1020, 1026 (Blanchard). Appointed counsel informed Mayzes
that he could file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Our
discretionary review of the record discloses no arguable issues, and we
therefore affirm.
Further statutory references will be to the Penal Code except as
1
otherwise specified.
1
BACKGROUND
On November 22, 2019, an information was filed in Case No. 5-192132-
9 charging Mayzes with five felonies committed on or about April 2, 2016:
Driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)
(count 1); receiving stolen property (motor vehicle) (§ 496D, subd. (a)
(count 2); fleeing a pursuing peace officer’s motor vehicle while driving
recklessly (Veh. Code, § 2800.2) (count 3); fleeing a pursuing peace officer’s
motor vehicle and driving against traffic (Veh. Code, § 2800.4) (count 4); and
resisting an executive officer (§ 69) (count 5). Mayzes initially pleaded not
guilty. On February 10, 2020, the information was amended to charge
count 1 as a misdemeanor and add a misdemeanor count of resisting a peace
officer (§ 148, subd. (a)) (count 6). Mayzes withdrew his not guilty plea and
entered a plea of no contest to the felony charged in count 3 and the
misdemeanor counts 1 and 6. The remaining charges were dismissed. On
the same date, Mayzes was placed on formal probation for a period of three
years, with 90 days to be served in county jail.
On December 1, 2020, a complaint was filed in Case No. 2-333648-4,
alleging that on or about November 26, 2020, Mayzes committed an assault
by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) and
personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).
The preliminary hearing was continued a number of times and ultimately set
for April 27, 2021.2 Meanwhile, Mayzes was released on his own
recognizance.
On March 10, a complaint was filed in Case No. 2-334204-5 alleging
that Mayzes committed an assault with a deadly weapon (BB gun) on
March 8, while released from custody on bail or own recognizance in Case
2 All subsequent references to dates will be to the year 2021.
2
No. 2-333648-4 (§ 12022.1) and in violation of probation in Case
No. 5 192132-9. A petition to revoke probation in Case No. 5-192132-9 was
filed, and the court revoked probation on March 11.
Mayzes was held to answer in Case No. 2-334204-5 after a preliminary
hearing on April 13, and in Case No. 2-333648-4 after a preliminary hearing
on April 27. A felony information was filed in Case No. 2-334204-5 on
April 20 and in Case No. 2-333648-4 on May 6. Mayzes pleaded not guilty
and denied the enhancement allegations in both cases.
On May 26, defense counsel declared a doubt as to Mayzes’s
competency. Criminal proceedings in the three cases were suspended
pursuant to section 1368 and two mental health experts were appointed to
evaluate Mayzes. The experts reached different conclusions: Melissa
Johnson, Psy.D., concluded Mayzes was not competent to stand trial and
Stephanie Williams, Ph.D., concluded Mayzes was competent to stand trial.
The court appointed a third expert, Corey Hahn, Psy.D., who concluded
Mayzes was not competent to stand trial.
On September 15, defense counsel and the People submitted on the
evaluators’ reports. Mayzes addressed the court personally, strenuously
insisting he was competent and demanding to go immediately to trial. The
court found Mayzes incompetent to stand trial (§ 1370, subd. (a)(1)(B)) and
referred him to the Contra Costa Conditional Release Program (CONREP) for
a placement recommendation (§ 1370, subd. (a)(2)(A)). On October 6, the
court committed Mayzes to the Department of State Hospitals for a
maximum of two years (§ 1370, subd. (c)(1).)
Mayzes filed a timely notice of appeal on October 19.
3
DISCUSSION
In Ben C., our Supreme Court held that “[i]f appointed counsel in a
conservatorship appeal finds no arguable issues, counsel . . . should (1) inform
the court he or she has found no arguable issues to be pursued on appeal; and
(2) file a brief setting out the applicable facts and the law.” (Ben C., supra,40 Cal.4th at p. 544.) In addition, “[t]he conservatee is to be provided a copy
of the brief and informed of the right to file a supplemental brief.” (Id. at
p. 544, fn. 6.) The reviewing court may then dismiss the appeal if there are
no arguable issues. (Id. at p. 544.) The Ben C. procedure applies to appeals
of competency proceedings. (Blanchard, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1025-
1026.)
Here, Mayzes’s appointed appellate counsel followed Ben C. and
Blanchard. Counsel reviewed the record, found no arguable issues and so
informed Mayzes; filed his brief in this court and served Mayzes with a copy;
and informed Mayzes that he could file a supplemental brief. Although
counsel recognizes that, under Blanchard, we are not required to
independently review the record, he asks us to exercise our discretion to
conduct an independent review. (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544, fn. 7
[appellate court may choose to retain an appeal rather than dismiss it].)
We have reviewed the record. The finding Mayzes was not competent
to stand trial was supported by substantial evidence. The commitment
ordered by the court is authorized by law and supported by CONREP’s
recommendation. Mayzes was represented by able counsel.
DISPOSITION
The orders finding Mayzes incompetent to stand trial and committing
him to the Department of State Hospitals are affirmed.
4
STEWART, P.J.
We concur.
RICHMAN, J.
MARKMAN, J. *
People v. Mayzes (A163871)
* Judge of the Alameda Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
5