People v. Mendoza CA3

Filed 6/22/21 P. v. Mendoza CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ---- THE PEOPLE, C092176

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. PMH20190022)

v.

AARON MICHAEL MENDOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

The trial court found defendant Aaron Michael Mendoza to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (the Act). On appeal, he argues the trial court in El Dorado County lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition to commit him as an SVP because the petition could be filed only in San Joaquin County, the county in which he was most recently convicted. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2006, defendant was convicted of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 years in El Dorado County and was sentenced to a term in state prison. He was paroled in 2011 after an evaluation under the Act determined he did not meet the criteria as an SVP. In 2014, while still on parole, a search of defendant’s cell phone during a traffic stop in San Joaquin County, found sexually explicit images of minors. Police arrested defendant for violating his parole, and defendant was convicted

1

of possession of child pornography in San Joaquin County, then sentenced to a state prison term. In 2019, the El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office filed a petition seeking to commit defendant as an SVP. Defendant filed a demurrer, asserting, in part, that El Dorado County did not have jurisdiction over the petition, which could be heard only in San Joaquin County, based on defendant’s conviction in San Joaquin County. Both parties submitted briefing. Citing Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 6601, subdivision (i) and case law construing that section, the trial court issued a tentative decision overruling the demurrer, holding: “Nothing in the language of [section] 6601(i) supports the conclusion that only the last county to commit the person to the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has jurisdiction. Case law finds to the contrary and holds that more than one county can be responsible for a commitment of the defendant to the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections.” In particular, the court explained: “[R]espondent was currently serving an 8 year sentence for possession of child pornography based upon his March 25, 2014 guilty plea; he was previously convicted in 2006 of one count of violation of Penal Code, § 288(a), lewd and lascivious act with a child less than 14 years old; he was paroled on that conviction o[n] May 27, 2011; and his parole on that conviction was violated on March 5, 2014 after he was arrested for the possession of child pornography charge . . . . Therefore, his commitment to the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was not only the result of his child pornography conviction, but was also due to his parole from the 2006 conviction for violation of Penal Code, § 288(a) being