People v. Youmans CA3

Filed 12/23/22 P. v. Youmans CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C094440

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 00F03501)

v.

ANTONIO PEREZ YOUMANS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 6604, the trial court found defendant Antonio Perez Youmans to be a sexually violent predator and committed him to the custody of the State Department of State Hospitals for appropriate treatment. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court failed to sufficiently consider how his plan for voluntary treatment could reduce his likelihood of reoffending once released from custody. Finding no error, we affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In August 2000, defendant pled guilty to three counts of using force or duress to commit a lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 years and one count of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 years. The trial court sentenced defendant to a stipulated term of 20 years in prison. In January 2018, the prosecution filed a petition pursuant to section 6601 to have defendant committed to the State Department of State Hospitals as a sexually violent predator for appropriate treatment and confinement. At the trial on this petition, the prosecution presented testimony from two psychologists. Defendant presented testimony from his own psychologist and from a friend who had agreed to help defendant reintegrate into society upon his release. All three psychologists diagnosed defendant with pedophilic disorder. The prosecution’s psychologists both expressed the opinion that defendant fit the statutory requirements for commitment as a sexually violent predator because his mental disorder “makes [him] a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he . . . will engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior.” (§ 6600, subd. (a)(1).) Defendant’s psychologist disputed these opinions. All three psychologists scored defendant as a three on the Static-99R test, which corresponds with an average risk of sexual offending. The prosecution’s experts considered defendant to be a “high-risk/high-needs” offender because he had significantly more external and idiosyncratic risk factors not covered by the Static-99R test than the typical sex offender. These risk factors included the high number of victims of defendant’s sex offenses; the young age of some of the victims; emotional congruence with children; lack of emotionally intimate relationships with adults; self-regulation problems; resistance to rules and supervision; health issues; childhood behavior problems, including a juvenile sex offense; continued dysfunctional coping; and adverse childhood experiences, including suffering childhood sexual abuse.