Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Luis Obispo County Super. Ct. No. F320941
Dodie A. Harman, Judge
Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Mary Sanchez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
GILBERT, P.J.
Raymond Baldonado Chavez appeals a judgment, following a jury trial, which orders him recommitted to the California Department of Mental Health (CDMH) for treatment as a sexually violent predator (SVP). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) We conclude that: 1) substantial evidence supports the findings that Chavez is an SVP who is likely to engage in sexually violent conduct if released and 2) the SVP Act does not violate the ex post facto or the equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution. We affirm.
FACTS
In 2003 the superior court found that Chavez was an SVP and it committed him to the CDMA for two years for treatment. In 2005 the District Attorney filed a petition to extend his commitment. Chavez requested a jury trial.
Dr. Jesus Padilla, a clinical psychologist at Atascadero State Hospital, testified that Chavez is an SVP. He suffers from paraphilia and an antisocial personality disorder. He has a "mental disorder" which "predisposes him to the commission of sexually violent acts." At 25 he was convicted of sodomizing another prison inmate. In 1975 he was convicted of raping a 79-year-old woman at a motel. In 1991 he was convicted of rape, sexual penetration with a foreign object and sexual battery. Dr. Padilla said Chavez refused to participate in sex offender treatment and is likely to commit a sexually violent offense if released. He said there are conflicting studies about whether an offender's age reduces the risk of recidivism. High risk offenders do not necessarily cease reoffending "as [they] get older."
Dr. Shobha Srinivasan, a clinical psychologist, testified that "Chavez meets the criteria for a sexually violent predator." He has a pattern of having "coercive sex" with "nonconsenting partners." He refused to participate in sex offender treatment and is likely to reoffend.
In the defense case Dr. Theodore Donaldson, a clinical psychologist, testified that Chavez does not have a "diagnosed mental disorder." He said that because Chavez was 66 years old, his risk of recidivism is very low, "maybe two percent."
Dr. John Podboy, a clinical psychologist, testified that Chavez does not meet the SVP criteria. He said that because of Chavez's age and his poor physical condition, "the probability of reoffending . . . is quite low."
DISCUSSION
I. Substantial Evidence
Chavez contends there is no substantial evidence to support the judgment. He claims the prosecution did not prove he was an SVP who should be recommitted for treatment. We disagree.
"At trial the People bore the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) appellant had been convicted of at least two separate sexually violent offenses; (2) he has a 'diagnosed mental disorder'; and (3) his mental disorder made it likely that he will engage in sexually violent behavior if released." (People v. Poe (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 826, 830.)
Chavez contends there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he would likely engage in sexually violent conduct if released. But Dr. Padilla testified that Chavez "presents a serious and well-founded risk to the community" and is "likely to commit a sexually violent predatory offense." He said Chavez was "extremely volatile" at the hospital. He refused to participate in sex offender treatment and did not appreciate his "risk to reoffend." Dr. Padilla said Chavez, "has great difficulty managing his emotions, both in the state hospital and outside."
Dr. Srinivasan testified Chavez "does present a likely risk to commit sexually violent predatory offenses if not in appropriate treatment and custody." He has an "antisocial personality." He is "abusive, sarcastic, belligerent" and he "flaunts hospital rules." He refused to participate in either "substance-abuse treatment or sexually deviancy treatment."
Chavez notes that Dr. Donaldson and Dr. Podboy testified that because of Chavez's age it is not likely he would reoffend if released. But reliance on the evidence favorable to Chavez does not support his claim that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment. We review the entire record. We do not weigh the evidence or decide the credibility of experts. (People v. Poe, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 830.) We "draw all reasonable inferences, and resolve all conflicts, in favor of the judgment." (Ibid.) Dr. Srinivasan recognized that older offenders generally have a reduced risk for reoffending, but this pattern did not apply to Chavez. He has aged, but he remains "antisocial in his orientation." Dr. Padilla also said the factor involving Chavez's age did not change his opinion that Chavez remains "a serious risk." The evidence is sufficient.
II. Ex Post Facto and Equal Protection
Chavez claims the SVP Act violates the ex post facto and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution. California precedent holds otherwise. (Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1170, 1175;
People v. Starr (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1207-1208.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: YEGAN, J., COFFEE, J.