People v. Washington CA2/2

Filed 10/1/14 P. v. Washington CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B241433

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. ZM006782) v.

CLAYBORN WASHINGTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Norm Shapiro, Judge. Affirmed.

Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Yun K. Lee and Peggy Z. Huang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Clayborn Washington (appellant) appeals from a judgment committing him to the Department of Mental Health (DMH) as a sexually violent predator (SVP) for a term of two years. He contends that the judgment must be reversed on the ground that the 2013 amendments to the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) amount to ex post facto punishment, will place him in double jeopardy, and will result in a violation of his rights to equal protection and due process.1 He also contends that changes in the SVPA enacted by initiative in 2006 violate his right to equal protection. We find that appellant’s contentions are not ripe for review or are precluded by stare decisis, and we thus affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Between 1971 and 1986, appellant suffered five convictions and one juvenile adjudication of sexually violent offenses. In 2003, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a petition to commit appellant under former provisions of the SVPA, Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 et seq.2 At that time, former section 6604 provided for a commitment period of two years. (See Stats. 2000, ch. 420, § 3.) After the petition was filed and before trial, by legislative enactment and the passage of Proposition 83 (“Jessica’s Law”), section 6604 was amended to provide for an indeterminate term of commitment. (See Stats. 2006, ch. 337, § 55; Prop. 83, § 27, approved Nov. 7, 2006.) There was general uncertainty about the retroactivity of the indeterminate commitment; thus, on October 11, 2006, after the 2006 legislative amendment and before the election in which Proposition 83 was passed, the Los Angeles County District Attorney, public defender, and superior court entered into stipulations with appellant and others similarly situated, agreeing that the pending commitment