P. v. Gabba
A jury found Thomas Joseph Gabba to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) within the meaning of the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) (Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] 6600 et seq.),[2]after which the court committed him to Atascadero State Hospital (ASH) for a two-year term. On appeal, Gabba wisely does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the commitment order; indeed, the evidence is overwhelming. Rather, he contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting the prosecutions expert witnesses to testify as to (1) inadmissible hearsay utilized in forming their opinions, and (2) details of the SVP treatment program at ASH. He also maintains that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to pursue his (Gabbas) claim that the initial commitment petition was unlawfully filed. Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Gabba