P. v. Chester CA2/6

Filed 7/17/13 P. v. Chester CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B242554 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2008-333119-MH-VP- Plaintiff and Respondent, VTA) (Ventura County) v.

LENARD LEN CHESTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Lenard Len Chester appeals from an order, entered after jury trial, committing him to the State Department of State Hospitals as a sexually violent predator. (SVP; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.)1 We appointed counsel to represent appellant. After counsel's examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requested that we independently review the record pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [18 L.Ed.2d 493] and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, which the court may do in its discretion. (See Conservatorship of Ben. C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544, fn. 7.) On June 11, 2013, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.

personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. On July 1, 2013, we received a supplemental letter brief from appellant stating, among other things, that paraphilia NOS is not listed as a mental disorder in the recently published DSM-V. (See Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1157 [no requirement that mental disorder be specifically defined in the DSM-IV]; People v. Williams (2003) 31 Cal.4th 757, 761 [SVP commitment based on paraphila NOS]; People v. Burris (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1110 [SVP commitment based on paraphilia involving rape and antisocial personality disorder].) Appellant also asserts that the Sexually Violent Predator Act (§ 6600 et seq.) violates his equal protection and due process rights because it was amended to provide for an indeterminate commitment.2 (See People v. McKee (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1325, 1348 [no equal protection violation]; People v. McDonald (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1371-1372 [no due process or equal protection violation]; People v. McCloud (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1085-1086 [same]; People v. Landau (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1, 47-48 [same].) The record shows that, appellant was convicted in 1982 of three counts of rape by force (Pen. Code § 261(2)) and one count of assault to commit rape (§ 220) during the commission of a burglary or robbery. Appellant was sentenced to 44 years state prison. On December 12, 2008, the Ventura County District Attorney filed a petition for commitment as a sexually violent predator. (§ 6600 et seq.) The trial court found that appellant was likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior upon his release, and set the matter for trial. At trial, two psychologists (Doctor Steven Jenkins and Doctor Thomas MacSpeiden) opined that appellant currently suffered from paraphilia NOS, non-