People v. Chau CA2/8

Filed 7/26/21 P. v. Chau CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B308823

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. ZM031154) v.

PAUL CHAU,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert S. Harrison, Judge. Affirmed. Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Michael C. Keller and Charles S. Lee, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

On October 20, 2020, the trial court, after a bench trial, sustained the People’s petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500 and ordered defendant and appellant Paul Chau committed to the State Department of Developmental Services for a one-year term. Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial or claim that any errors occurred during trial. Defendant raises only one issue on appeal, a constitutional equal protection challenge that he did not assert in the trial court. Defendant forfeited his constitutional challenge. We reject defendant’s contention his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the constitutional claim below. We therefore affirm. BACKGROUND In August 2020, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500 seeking a recommitment of defendant to the State Department of Developmental Services for another year on the grounds his developmental disability continued to cause him to be a danger to himself and others and that judicial commitment remained the only suitable option. Defendant has been committed to the State Department of Developmental Services for several years. After felony charges were filed against defendant in 2013, he was found incompetent to stand trial. Charges were eventually dismissed when it was determined he was unlikely to attain competency due to his developmental disability. The People sought and obtained an order of commitment pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500 and have sought annual recommitment orders since then.