People v. Walsh CA3

Filed 5/21/25 P. v. Walsh CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

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

THE PEOPLE, C101227

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 20F2823 & 23MH6298) v.

ABRAM ALEXANDER WALSH,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Abram Alexander Walsh appeals from a commitment order in a proceeding under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) (Welf. and Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.).1 Defendant challenges the commitment order, arguing that the lack of a personal advisement and waiver of his right to a jury trial violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. As detailed below, we reject defendant’s due

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

process claim, conditionally affirm the commitment order, and remand for the parties to litigate the equal protection claim in the trial court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2020, defendant pled no contest to committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)), possession of child pornography (§ 311.11, subd. (b)), and possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The court sentenced defendant to five years in prison. In 2023, prior to defendant’s release, the People petitioned for defendant to be committed as a sexually violent predator (SVP). Following an off-the-record discussion with counsel at a pre-trial hearing, the trial court stated, in defendant’s presence, that “[j]ury has been waived.” A bench trial was held, and the court determined defendant to be an SVP. The court ordered defendant committed to the Department of State Hospitals for an indeterminate term. Defendant timely appeals. DISCUSSION In an SVP proceeding, a defendant “is entitled to a trial by jury.” (§ 6603, subd. (a).) If the defendant or the petitioning attorney “does not demand a jury trial, the trial shall be before the court without a jury.” (§ 6603, subd. (f).) Defendant effectively acknowledges that the SVP statutory scheme does not require a trial court to advise a defendant of his right to a jury trial or obtain a personal waiver of that right. Nonetheless, defendant argues that the court’s failure to do so here violated his constitutional rights in two respects. First, he contends that due process “mandates a jury trial waiver for SVP defendants that [includes] the same protections afforded criminal defendants.” Second, he claims that the SVP statutory scheme denies him equal