P. v. Ring
P. v. Ring
Filed 9/10/08 P. v. Ring CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANDREW ARLINGTON RING,
Defendant and Appellant. |
F054107
(Super. Ct. No. 1103171)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. John G. Whiteside, Judge.
Michael B. McPartland, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Paul E. OConnor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Defendant Andrew Arlington Ring was committed for an indeterminate period of time to the California Department of Mental Health (DMH) as a sexually violent predator (SVP). On appeal, defendant contends that his commitment for an indeterminate period violates his right to due process and equal protection. We disagree and affirm the commitment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1991, defendant molested his girlfriends 12-year-old granddaughter and was convicted of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a).) In 2001, defendant was convicted by plea for the same crime after he molested a five-year-old girl. In March 2005, defendant violated parole by absconding, using alcohol, threatening/harassing, and failing to attend sex offender counseling.
On January 9, 2006, the Stanislaus County District Attorney filed a petition seeking to commit defendant as an SVP. Four clinical psychologists examined defendant and diagnosed him as having [p]edophilia, sexually attracted to females, non-exclusive type. Dr. Hupka concluded that defendant was not likely to engage in SVP behavior in the future. Drs. Romanoff, Fricke and Coles concluded that, without appropriate custody and treatment, defendant was likely to engage in SVP behavior in the future. On March 10, 2006, a probable cause hearing was held and, from the testimony of Drs. Romanoff, Fricke and Coles, the trial court decided there was probable cause to believe that defendant fell within the statutory definition of an SVP. On October 10, 2006, the prosecution filed notice of its intent to have defendant committed as an SVP, pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA; Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.),[1]for an indefinite period of time.
Defendant waived his right to trial on the petition for commitment and the petition was submitted to the trial court. Defendant made a motion to the court to find the indeterminate provision of section 6604 unconstitutional because it violated defendants right to due process and equal protection. The court denied the motion. On the basis of the four psychologists reports and the testimony from the probable cause hearing, the court found defendant fell within the statutory definition of an SVP and committed defendant to DMH for treatment for an indeterminate term.
DISCUSSION
The issues raised by defendant regarding the amended SVPA have been addressed by this court in People v. Garcia (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1120 and by the First District Court of Appeal in People v. Boyle (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1266.[2] For the reasons stated in those cases, we conclude defendants contentions must fail.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
* Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Wiseman, J., and Kane, J.
[1] All statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
[2] We recognize these issues are currently pending review by the Supreme Court. (People v. McKee (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1517 (review granted July 9, 2008, S162823); People v. Riffey (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 474 (review granted Aug. 20, 2008, S164711).)
|
