P. v. Derry
Filed 5/15/06 P. v. Derry CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HAROLD EUGENE DERRY, JR., Defendant and Appellant. | F047542 (Super. Ct. No. FP003338A) OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Sidney P. Chapin, Judge.
Robert L. S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Connie A. Proctor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
In August 1993, Harold Eugene Derry, Jr., pled no contest to charges that he molested two boys under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)), and he was subsequently sentenced to six years in prison. In March 2000, a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA; Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] § 6600 et seq.), and he was committed to the Department of Health for two years. His commitment was extended for two years in May 2002. The instant petition to extend his commitment (§ 6604) was filed on March 2, 2004. On January 24, 2005, following a court trial, Derry was again found to be an SVP and was recommitted for two years. He now appeals, claiming the evidence was insufficient to establish his lack of volitional control over his behavior. We disagree and affirm.
DISCUSSION
An SVP extension hearing is not a mere review or continuation of an earlier proceeding, but instead is a new and independent proceeding at which, with limited exceptions, the petitioner must prove that the individual meets the criteria of the SVPA. (People v. Salomon Munoz (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 421, 429.) The SVPA defines an SVP as â€
