P. v. Olsen

Filed 2/23/06 P. v. Olsen CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

On October 6, 2000, defendant William Karl Olsen was committed to the Department of Mental Health for two years pursuant to Welfare and Institution Code section 6604 as a sexually violent predator (SVP).[1] Defendant's commitment was later extended to October 5, 2004. On August 5, 2004, the District Attorney of Santa Clara County filed a petition to extend defendant's commitment to October 5, 2006. Attached to the petition was a declaration by a deputy district attorney. The declaration stated that defendant continues to meet the criteria for commitment as an SVP.

Defendant's probable cause hearing commenced on September 27, 2004, and continued on October 1, 2004. Based on the evidence presented, the trial court found sufficient evidence to hold defendant for trial.

On May 9, 2005, defendant filed a motion to preclude the testimony of the state's two evaluators relating to their 2005 evaluations of defendant, which updated their earlier evaluations, due to the district attorney's failure to comply with the Civil Discovery Act (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.010 et seq.).

On May 10, 2005, defendant waived jury trial. Defendant then withdrew the motion he filed the day before, and the updated evaluations of Dale R. Arnold, Ph.D., and Kathleen Longwell, Ph.D., were admitted into evidence as exhibit 1. Both evaluators found that defendant had a diagnosed mental disorder that predisposes him to the commission of criminal sexual acts, and that defendant was likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior as a result of his diagnosed mental disorder without appropriate treatment and custody. Both evaluators concluded that defendant meets the criteria of an SVP as described in section 6600, subdivision (a). After a one-half hour recess, during which time the court reviewed the evaluation reports, the parties submitted the matter. The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegations in the petition were true, and ordered that defendant's commitment be extended for two years effective October 2, 2004. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief that states the case and facts but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written response from defendant. Pursuant

to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

_______________________________________________________

Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J

.

WE CONCUR:

__________________________

MCADAMS, J.

_________________________

DUFFY, J.

Publication courtesy of Escondido Wrongful Termination Lawyer (http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/) And Escondido Lawyers Directory

( http://www.fearnotlaw.com/ )

[1] Further unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

This court affirmed the October 6, 2000 order on appeal. (People v. Olsen (Nov. 1, 2001, H022135) [nonpub. opn.].)