People v. Wilkins CA3

Filed 6/24/22 P. v. Wilkins CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C094779

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 03F05969)

v.

RYAN MICHAEL WILKINS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Ryan Michael Wilkins appeals the trial court’s order granting the petition to commit him as a sexually violent predator under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 6600 et seq. On appeal, he argues he is entitled to the same advisements as criminal defendants, as well as those defendants committed as mentally disordered offenders and following not guilty by reason of insanity judgments, under the principles of due process and equal protection. Defendant argues the trial court did not adequately advise him under the standard applicable to other similarly situated defendants, and thus

1 Further section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

his case must be reversed or, in the alternative, conditionally reversed and remanded so the trial court can hold an equal protection hearing. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts of defendant’s crimes are irrelevant to this appeal. Suffice it to say, defendant pled guilty to a qualifying sexual offense in 2004 in exchange for the dismissal of a similar sexual offense against a separate victim. In 2009, a petition was filed alleging defendant met the criteria of a sexually violent predator. On June 7, 2021, defendant remotely appeared for a trial status conference. Before speaking with the judge, defendant and his attorney were sent to a virtual breakout room to speak privately. When defendant and his attorney returned to speak with the trial court, defendant’s counsel stated he was ready for trial, but “[t]he issue that has not been able to get resolved is whether or not [defendant] is going to request a jury trial in this matter. So I explained to him the difference between a jury trial and a court trial, and asked him if he was -- and also corresponding with a jury trial he would be transported to Sacramento, put into quarantine, and then we would be able to essentially commence our trial. If he is -- is requesting a bench trial, then his request, I believe, is to appear remotely. So he just needs to inform the Court what his desire is and ask the Court to take any type of waiver at that point.” Defendant confirmed he discussed the topics outlined by his counsel. The trial court then asked defendant, “So you understand you have a right to be present at your trial. It’s your trial. You have a right to be present in Sacramento at the trial. [¶] . . . [¶] And you have a right to have a jury trial, which means the People have filed a petition, and they have to prove that you qualify as what’s called a sexually violent predator. They have to prove the elements of that to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and convince all 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that you have a mental condition