People v. Sanchez CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Sep 12, 2023 No. B328290Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the appellant's commitment as a sexually violent predator, finding that he failed to request an independent expert and that his claims regarding trial counsel's competency and treatment conditions were meritless or not cognizable.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred by failing to appoint a defense evaluator in an SVP commitment proceeding.
Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not obtaining a separate evaluation.
Whether the adequacy of treatment at a state hospital is cognizable on appeal from an SVP commitment order.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“nothing in the statutory language obligates the trial court to automatically appoint an expert in every case.”

“nothing in the record indicates that appellant ever made such a request.”

Filed 9/12/23 P. v. Sanchez CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B328290 (Super. Ct. No. 2019013468) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

DAVID PAUL SANCHEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

David Paul Sanchez appeals from the trial court’s judgment and order committing him to the Department of State Hospitals as a sexually violent predator (SVP) within the meaning of the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.)1 We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues in accordance with

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.) and People v. Kisling (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 288 (Kisling) and requested that we independently review the record pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Appellant filed his own supplemental brief, in propria persona, contending that he should have had a “defense evaluator” “defend” him at his SVP trial.2 We affirm. Factual and Procedural Background In January 2015, appellant assaulted an off-duty female sheriff’s deputy as she exercised at the Botanical Gardens in Ventura. Appellant was convicted of sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (c)(1)) and sentenced to 180 days in county jail. In January 2016, appellant approached a 7-year-old girl in the public library and began masturbating as he stared at her. Appellant was convicted of indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314(1)) and sentenced to 60 months of formal probation. In September 2017, appellant approached an 11-year-old girl celebrating her birthday at a local miniature golf course and grabbed her left buttocks twice. Appellant was convicted of one count of a lewd act upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and sentenced to three years in prison. In May 2019, the Ventura County District Attorney filed a petition for commitment as an SVP. (§ 6600 et seq.) The trial

People v. Sanchez CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

DAVID PAUL SANCHEZ,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

GILBERT, P. J.

BALTODANO, J.

AI Brief