People v. Shehee CA2/2

Filed 6/16/15 P. v. Shehee CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B248097

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. ZM004373) v.

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:* Gregory Ell Shehee appeals from the February 4, 2013 judgment and order committing him as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 et seq. On that date, the jury found true the allegation that appellant had a currently diagnosed mental disorder that made him a danger to the health and safety of others in that it was likely he would engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior. The court ordered appellant committed to Coalinga State Hospital for a two- year term. We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” containing an acknowledgment that he had

* BOREN, P.J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.

been unable to find any arguable issues. Appellant’s counsel urges that the procedures set out in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) apply to appeals of SVP proceedings. Counsel requests that we independently review the record, which the court may do at its discretion. (In re Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544, fn. 7.) On October 23, 2014, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. After being granted extensions of time, appellant filed a supplemental brief on February 6, 2015, arguing that his state and federal rights have been violated. Specifically, he argues: (1) The trial court abused its discretion, the prosecutor committed misconduct, and his attorney was ineffective in admitting evidence of his 1975 juvenile offense, of which he was innocent; (2) Dr. Jack Vognsen and Dr. Dale Arnold made up a false diagnosis of paraphilia NOS for appellant, denying him equal protection and the right to a fair trial; his attorney was ineffective for not investigating properly, and the court abused its discretion by admitting Coalinga State Hospital records; (3) The prosecution violated his state and federal rights by using the Evelyn W. case to mislead the jury and by mixing that case with two non-convictions, i.e., “Cynthia M[.] and Patty,” and his counsel was ineffective by not objecting; (4) His counsel was ineffective in failing to submit medical reports on his eyes and back surgery, which would have protected his due process rights; (5) Dr. Vognsen’s testimony negatively influenced the jury and his counsel was ineffective in failing to object to testimony appellant threw a bed across a room, which denied him a fair trial, as did the prosecutor’s misconduct of reading hearsay interdisciplinary notes at trial; (6) Appellant was severely injured by police officers at the state hospital, who jumped him on him on several occasions; (7) Evidence that could prove his innocence was taken from him and destroyed and he received other punitive treatment and physical assaults resulting in injury, and he was denied a speedy trial; (8) The prosecutor inflamed the jury and committed perjury by stating appellant was untruthful about his eye injuries, and appellant has suffered an ongoing denial of medical treatment; (9) [appellant’s No. X] The trial court violated his equal protection rights by