People v. Burt CA3

Filed 9/10/25 P. v. Burt CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Trinity) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101059

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21CV040)

v.

RICKY DEWAYNE BURT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Ricky Dewayne Burt appeals from a commitment order in a proceeding under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.). Burt argues there was insufficient evidence he was likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior if released from custody. We reject this claim and affirm. BACKGROUND In 1989, Burt pled guilty to “Sodomy on a Child” in the state of Utah for acts against a nine-year-old boy. The trial court sentenced him to five years to life imprisonment. In 2014, Burt pled no contest to lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced Burt to

1

eight years of imprisonment. In 2021, shortly before Burt’s expected parole release date, the People petitioned to commit Burt as a sexually violent predator. At trial, Dr. Dale Arnold testified as an expert. He explained that Burt suffers from pedophilic disorder and has “a chronic sexual attraction to prepubescent boys.” Dr. Arnold opined that Burt was likely to commit another sexually violent predatory offense. That assessment was based on actuarial risk scales as well as other risk factors and variables. One of those factors was “age or health concerns that would limit both mobility or ability to commit an offense. Or longevity.” Burt was 60 years old at the time of trial. Dr. Arnold explained that the actuarial instruments account for a person’s age: “[T]he person’s total score drops by 2 points when they go from age 59 to age 60. So on . . . these instruments, [Burt’s] scores just went down by two points. So his current age and health concerns are really accounted for within the instrument itself.” Dr. Arnold acknowledged Burt had put a lot of effort into trying to control his attraction to children, though Burt had been unable to do so consistently. He testified as to how “open and honest [Burt] was about what he had done . . . in the past, and his desire to get treatment.” But Dr. Arnold pointed out that, even though Burt has regretted his behavior in the past and has received extensive treatment, he has gone on to reoffend. Based on his assessment, Dr. Arnold found Burt was linked to a group of offenders of whom, over five years, about 26 percent would be charged with or convicted of a new crime. Dr. Arnold explained this was a conservative estimate of reoffending because not everyone who reoffends gets reported and, even when it is reported, not everyone gets charged. Dr. Arnold testified that, historically, for every 100 inmates he has evaluated, he has recommended eight for civil commitment and has recommended against civil commitment for 92. Dr. Mark Miculian also testified as an expert. Like Dr. Arnold, Dr. Miculian concluded that Burt was “likely to reoffend due to his mental disorder without appropriate treatment and custody.” Dr. Miculian said of Burt: “I’d say he’s been very