P. v. Hubbs
Norman James Hubbs appeals from a judgment entered on April 13, 2006, recommitting him to Atascadero State Hospital for a two-year period (July 1, 2005 to July 1, 2007) for treatment and confinement as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the provisions of the Sexually Violent Predators Act (Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] 6600 et seq.) (SVP Act) following a jury finding that he is an SVP. Hubbs contends (1) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to retain expert witnesses to testify on his behalf or otherwise prepare for trial; (2) the court deprived him of his right to effective assistance of counsel by failing to rule on his pretrial motion to replace his court-appointed counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden); (3) the court erroneously granted his request to represent himself under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta); (4) the court erroneously permitted the prosecution's experts, Dr. Robert Owen and Dr. Dana Putnam, to testify to a "large quantity" of inadmissible hearsay;[2](5) the court erroneously excluded relevant evidence that would have permitted him to challenge the purportedly predatory nature of his prior convictions; and (6) the court erroneously instructed the jury with a modified version of CALJIC No. 2.50.01 that, in effect, told the jury they could use his prior sex offenses to demonstrate he has a propensity to commit such acts in the future, thereby eliminating the requirement that the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Court conclude Hubbs has met his burden of showing the judgment recommitting him to the Atascadero State Hospital must be reversed on the ground his trial counsel provided prejudicially ineffective assistance of counsel, and the matter must be remanded for a new trial.
Comments on P. v. Hubbs