Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIC300390. Ronald L. Taylor, Judge. (Retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RICHLI J.
Following years of confinement as a sexually violent predator (SVP) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604), defendant and appellant Steven Willett was released to community outpatient treatment pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6608. However, his outpatient status was revoked about nine months later pursuant to Penal Code section 1608. Defendant subsequently admitted he had violated the terms and conditions of his release, and was ordered to be returned to Coalinga State Hospital. Defendant appeals from the judgment. We find no error and affirm.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant had an extensive history of sexual offenses, beginning in 1968 when he was 16 years of age, and concluding in 1994 at age 41. Defendant’s victims ranged in ages from 13 to 26. He was civilly committed as an SVP pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6604 by the Riverside County Superior Court on September 5, 1997, and was admitted to Atascadero State Hospital. He was civilly recommitted by the Fresno County Superior Court to an indeterminate term as an SVP.
On September 3, 2008, the Riverside County Superior Court found that defendant would not be a danger to others due to his mental disorder while released on supervision and treatment into the community. The court therefore ordered defendant placed in the Liberty Healthcare Corporation (Liberty) conditional release program for one year.
Due to the difficulties of securing a residence for defendant, defendant was not placed into the community until September 2, 2009.
On May 19, 2010, Liberty sent a letter to the trial court requesting revocation of defendant’s outpatient status pursuant to Penal Code section 1608 due to defendant’s noncompliance with the terms and conditions of his release and lack of understanding of the consequences of his actions. Specifically, on May 17, 2010, defendant was riding on a bus and made verbal contact with a woman that focused on “dating, marriage, offering her financial assistance, scheduling a future date and withholding/deceiving her of his legal status (SVP) or true criminal history by stating he was on parole for [driving under the influence].” The female was an undercover police officer participating in a surveillance of defendant, and responded to defendant’s questions. Defendant also initiated a conversation about obtaining telephone numbers, despite the fact that she had identified herself as 19 years old. Later, in two treatment sessions, defendant failed to disclose or discuss this interaction to his therapist or treatment team. Defendant also failed to recognize or give any thought to the “high risk nature of this interaction for himself and the female.”
The People subsequently filed a petition under Penal Code section 1609 to revoke defendant’s outpatient status. Defendant filed a formal response on June 2, 2010.
On June 10, 2010, after defendant waived his constitutional rights, defendant admitted that he had violated two of the terms and conditions of his outpatient release. The court formally found that defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his outpatient treatment contract, and ordered defendant’s outpatient status revoked. Defendant was thereafter ordered remanded to Coalinga State Hospital for further treatment. The People then withdrew their petition to revoke defendant’s outpatient status. This appeal followed.
II
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has done so. In his five-page supplemental brief, defendant generally challenges the revocation process under Penal Code section 1608, whether he was afforded his constitutional protections, and whether his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to present the testimony of his treating doctor regarding whether he was a danger to the community.
Persons placed in the conditional release program are subject to Penal Code sections 1605 through 1610 (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608, subd (e)), which include provisions controlling revocation requests. Revocation of an individual’s outpatient status can be initiated by the prosecution (Pen. Code, § 1609) or by the director of an outpatient program (Pen. Code, § 1608). As applicable here, Penal Code section 1608 provides that the director may file a written request for revocation if the outpatient treatment supervisor believes that the patient “requires extended inpatient treatment or refuses to accept further outpatient treatment and supervision.”
Upon such request, the court must hold a de novo hearing which includes “the constitutional requirements of confrontation, cross-examination, and a fact-finding hearing by a neutral body applying a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof.” (In re McPherson (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 332, 340, fn. omitted; see also People v. DeGuzman (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 414, 420.) The burden is on the prosecution to establish that revocation is appropriate. If the court grants the request, the court must order the defendant confined in a treatment facility. (Pen. Code, § 1608.) On appeal, an order revoking outpatient status is reviewed for substantial evidence. (DeGuzman, at p. 420.)
Unlike Penal Code section 1609, Penal Code section 1608 does not require a showing of dangerousness. It focuses on the treatment of the outpatient, while Penal Code section 1609 is concerned with the safety of the community. (See People v. DeGuzman, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at pp. 419-420; In re McPherson, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d at pp. 339-340.)
Here, contrary to his claims, defendant was afforded his constitutional protections, and there is no indication in the record that the revocation process under Penal Code section 1608 was not adhered to. After the director of Liberty filed a petition to revoke defendant’s outpatient status pursuant to Penal Code section 1608, a hearing was held. At that hearing, defendant indicated that he wished to admit to the violations of his outpatient agreement with Liberty. Defense counsel noted that he had advised defendant of his constitutional rights to call and confront witnesses, have expert witnesses appointed, and testify on his own behalf. Defendant acknowledged his rights and agreed to waive a formal hearing. Defendant admitted to violating the terms of his outpatient release and requested that he be sent back to the hospital as soon as possible.
“[A] guilty plea constitutes an admission of every element of the offense charged and constitutes a conclusive admission of guilt. [Citation.] It waives a trial and obviates the need for the prosecution to come forward with any evidence. [Citations.] A guilty plea thus concedes that the prosecution possesses legally admissible evidence sufficient to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, a plea of guilty waives any right to raise questions regarding the evidence, including its sufficiency or admissibility, and this is true whether or not the subsequent claim of evidentiary error is founded on constitutional violations. [Citation.] [Fn. omitted.] By pleading guilty a defendant ‘[waives] any right to question how evidence had been obtained just as fully and effectively as he [waives] any right to have his conviction reviewed on the merits.’ [Citation.]
“. . . In short, a guilty plea ‘admits all matters essential to the conviction.’ [Citation.] A defendant thereafter can raise only those questions which go to the power of the state to try him despite his guilt. In other words, in the language of the statute, defendant can only raise ‘grounds going to the legality of the proceedings.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Turner (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 116, 125-126.)
Accordingly, defendant cannot now complain of insufficiency of the evidence that he was in violation of his outpatient agreement or his resultant placement back into an inpatient treatment facility. Defendant’s plea was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.
Defendant has also failed to show that his trial counsel failed to act in a manner expected of reasonably competent attorneys or that he suffered prejudice as a result of any such incompetency. (People v. Wash (1993) 6 Cal.4th 215, 269; Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674].)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ P.J., CODRINGTON J.