People v. Raya CA5

Filed 7/22/15 P. v. Raya CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F068623 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FP003544A) v.

GREGORIO ALONZO RAYA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Kenneth C. Twisselman II, Judge. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Julie A. Hokans, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P. J., Poochigian, J. and Peña, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Gregorio Alonzo Raya contends he was denied due process because on remand the trial court denied his equal protection argument based upon the holding of People v. McKee (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1325 (McKee II) without holding an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Raya was committed to the State Department of Mental Health (now designated as the State Department of State Hospitals; hereafter DSH) on April 24, 2009, following a jury finding that he qualified as a sexually violent predator (SVP) within the meaning of the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.).1 Raya appealed the commitment order and in an unpublished decision (People v. Raya (July 7, 2010, F057532) [nonpub. opn.] (Raya)) this court stated in its disposition:

“The order for commitment finding Raya to be an SVP within the meaning of section 6600 et seq. and committing him to the custody of the [DSH] is affirmed, except as to the commitment for an indeterminate term, which is reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of whether an indefinite commitment violates equal protection. The trial court, however, shall suspend further proceedings pending finality of the proceedings on remand in [People v.] McKee [(2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172 (McKee I)].”

Remittitur issued in case No. F057532 on September 22, 2010. On January 14, 2011, the trial court suspended further proceedings in Raya’s case pending finality of the proceedings on remand in McKee I. On remand in McKee I, after an evidentiary hearing, it was determined by the trial court that the indeterminate term provisions of the SVPA did not violate equal protection.