People v. Sanchez CA2/6

Filed 9/12/23 P. v. Sanchez CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B328290
(Super. Ct. No. 2019013468)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)
v.
DAVID PAUL SANCHEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
David Paul Sanchez appeals from the trial court’s judgment
and order committing him to the Department of State Hospitals
as a sexually violent predator (SVP) within the meaning of the
Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, §
6600 et seq.)1 We appointed counsel to represent appellant on
appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an
opening brief raising no issues in accordance with
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.) and
People v. Kisling (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 288 (Kisling) and
requested that we independently review the record pursuant to
People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo).
Appellant filed his own supplemental brief, in propria
persona, contending that he should have had a “defense
evaluator” “defend” him at his SVP trial.2 We affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
In January 2015, appellant assaulted an off-duty female
sheriff’s deputy as she exercised at the Botanical Gardens in
Ventura. Appellant was convicted of sexual battery (Pen. Code, §
243, subd. (c)(1)) and sentenced to 180 days in county jail.
In January 2016, appellant approached a 7-year-old girl in
the public library and began masturbating as he stared at her.
Appellant was convicted of indecent exposure (Pen. Code, §
314(1)) and sentenced to 60 months of formal probation.
In September 2017, appellant approached an 11-year-old
girl celebrating her birthday at a local miniature golf course and
grabbed her left buttocks twice. Appellant was convicted of one
count of a lewd act upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and
sentenced to three years in prison.
In May 2019, the Ventura County District Attorney filed a
petition for commitment as an SVP. (§ 6600 et seq.) The trial
2 On August 28, 2023, appellant filed a second
supplemental brief with our permission. We have read and
considered the contentions therein, which are generally repetitive
and attack the validity of the trial court’s determination that he
met the requirements for commitment as an SVP. As we explain,
appellant’s contentions are meritless.
2
court found probable cause to believe that appellant was an SVP
and ordered that he be held for trial.
Two forensic psychologists evaluated appellant. Tricia
Busby, Ph.D., and Julie Yang, Psy.D, diagnosed appellant with
pedophilic disorder, female, nonexclusive type, as well as
hypersexuality. Based on their evaluations, Dr. Busby and Dr.
Yang concluded that appellant met the requirements for
commitment as an SVP.
In March 2023, appellant waived his right to a jury trial.
The parties stipulated that the trial court could decide the case
based on the written records, including appellant’s commitment
offense, as well as the evaluations by Dr. Busby and Dr. Yang.
The trial court found the allegations of the petition to be true and
that appellant met the criteria for certification as an SVP. The
trial court ordered appellant committed to the Department of
State Hospitals.
Discussion
Because the instant appeal is from an SVP commitment
proceeding rather than a first appeal as of right from a criminal
conviction, appellant is not entitled to our independent review of
the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
(See Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 537-539; Kisling, supra, 39
Cal.App.4th at pp. 290-292.) He is, however, entitled to appellate
consideration of any contentions raised in his supplemental brief.
(See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
In his first supplemental brief, appellant contends he “was
suppose[d] to have [a “defense evaluator”] to defend [him]” at his
SVP trial, “even if the evaluator” claims that he met the statutory
criteria for commitment. In his second supplemental brief,
appellant repeats this contention and challenges, in a cursory
3
fashion, defense counsel’s competency and understanding of the
SVP proceedings. He also challenges the adequacy of his
treatment at Coalinga State Hospital. Appellant’s contentions
are meritless.
First, a person subject to an SVP commitment proceeding
has the right to “retain experts or professional persons to perform
an examination on the person’s behalf,” but nothing in the
statutory language obligates the trial court to automatically
appoint an expert in every case. (See § 6603, subd. (a).) For
example, the statute expressly provides: “If the person is
indigent, the court shall appoint counsel to assist that person
and, upon the person’s request, assist the person in obtaining an
expert or professional person to perform an examination or
participate in the trial on the person’s behalf.” (Ibid., italics
added.)
Here, nothing in the record indicates that appellant ever
made such a request. Instead, the record shows that appellant
expressed his desire to take responsibility for his offenses and
return to Coalinga State Hospital to continue his treatment. He
stipulated that the trial court could decide the case based on the
written records, as well as the evaluations of Dr. Busby and Dr.
Yang. He also waived his right to have an updated evaluation.
Consequently, appellant’s contentions are not reviewable because
he expressly waived any such consideration.
Second, appellant’s cursory challenge to the competency of
his trial counsel is also without merit. Based on the foregoing,
and in view of appellant’s desire to “streamline [the] process,” it
is possible that the decision not to obtain a separate evaluation
was made for strategic reasons. Appellate courts do not second-
4
guess the reasonable, tactical decisions of counsel. (People v.
Orloff (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 947, 955.)
Third, appellant’s challenge to the adequacy of his
treatment at Coalinga State Hospital is not cognizable in this
appeal.
Disposition
The judgment and order of commitment are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P. J.
BALTODANO, J.
5
Anthony J. Sabo, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.