People v. Thompson CA2/6

Filed 9/20/16 P. v. Thompson CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B268078 (Super. Ct. No. MA-002-15) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Ventura County)

v.

ROY LEE THOMPSON,

Defendant and Respondent.

Roy Lee Thompson appeals a postjudgment order denying his petition for a 1 certificate of rehabilitation and pardon. (Pen. Code, § 4852.01.) The trial court concluded that appellant did not satisfy the high standards necessary to grant the petition. (See § 4852.13, subd. (a); People v. Blocker (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 438, 445.) We affirm. In 1977, appellant was convicted by jury of forcible rape of a 19-year-old woman in Kern County (former § 261.2) and admitted six out-of-state felony convictions: two for rape, two for attempted rape, an abduction, and a conviction for unlawful wounding. Appellant served a three-year prison sentence, was paroled in 1982, and, in 2015, filed a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon. Denying the petition, the trial court stated: “It’s important to point out my role here today in issuing any

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

decision is a discretionary act that would only be overturned for a manifest abuse [of discretion] that results in a miscarriage of justice. . . [¶] And it occurs to me that while justice is a broad term, it doesn’t apply just to [appellant]. It applies also to the victims in these other cases. Without stating more, your [petition] is denied.” Discussion Appellant contends that the trial court erred in assuming that the conviction for forcible rape was so heinous that it precluded the court from granting the petition as a matter of law. “Section 4852.13 gives the court discretion to decide whether a petitioner has demonstrated to the court’s satisfaction, ‘by his or her course of conduct his or her rehabilitation and . . . fitness to exercise all of the civil and political rights of citizenship.’ (§ 4852.13, subd. (a).)” (People v. Zeigler (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 638, 653.) Because the standards for determining whether rehabilitation has occurred are high, “there is no circumstance under which the statutory scheme requires or guarantees issuance of a certificate of rehabilitation by the superior court.” (People v. Ansell (2001) 25 Cal.4th 868, 887-888.) To prevail on appeal, must show that the trial court’s ruling was arbitrary, whimsical, or capricious. (People v. Zeigler, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at pp. 667-668.) Appellant’s rape conviction was not just any crime, “but one whose statistically significant odds of recidivism moved the Legislature to impose the lifetime registration requirement of section 290 on the theory that ‘sex offenders pose a “continuing threat to society” [citation] and require constant vigilance.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Blocker, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 445.) Appellant committed the rape while on parole and, like the prior convictions (all sexual assaults in Virginia), used a ruse to isolate a young woman and used violence to force sex upon the victim. The Kern County rape conviction was based on the following facts. Appellant, a 33-year-old Vietnam veteran, followed a 19-year-old victim after she left a coffee shop outside of Bakersfield at 4:00 a.m. on May 8, 1977. Appellant pulled up next to the victim at a stop light and said her rear tire was wobbling and about to fall off. Appellant flashed his lights and pulled up behind the victim when she stopped to look at the tire. Appellant offered to drive the victim home but she refused.