Hubbart v. Superior Court
| Decision Date | 14 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. H015007,H015007 |
| Citation | 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 268,50 Cal.App.4th 1155 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Previously published at 50 Cal.App.4th 1155 50 Cal.App.4th 1155, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8264, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,729 Christopher Evans HUBBART, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Santa Clara County, Respondent; The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. |
Rowan K. Klein and Klein & Crain, Santa Monica, Donald Specter, Arnold Erickson, San Quentin, for Petitioner.
No Appearance for Respondent.
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Peter J. Siggins, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Morris Lenk and Bruce M. Slavin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest.
United States Justice Foundation, Gary G. Kreep, Kevin T. Snider, Escondido, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.
At issue in this case is the constitutionality of the Sexually Violent Predators Act (Welf. and Inst.Code, § 6600 et seq.). Petitioner Christopher Evans Hubbart seeks a writ of prohibition to stay all further proceedings against him under the Act on grounds that it violates ex post facto and double jeopardy protections as applied to him and that on its face it violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process of the law. We find the Act is constitutional both on its face and as applied to Hubbart. We therefore deny his writ petition.
The Sexually Violent Predators (SVP) Act, adding sections 6600 through 6608 to the Welfare and Institutions Code, 1 was enacted October 11, 1995, effective January 1, 1996. (Stats.1995, chs. 762, 763.) In Section 1, the Legislature set forth its findings and summarized the purpose of the new law, as follows:
"The Legislature finds and declares that a small but extremely dangerous group of sexually violent predators that have diagnosable mental disorders can be identified while they are incarcerated. These persons are not safe to be at large and if released represent a danger to the health and safety of others in that they are likely to engage in acts of sexual violence. The Legislature further finds and declares that it is in the interest of society to identify these individuals prior to the expiration of their terms of imprisonment. It is the intent of the Legislature that once identified, these individuals, if found to be likely to commit acts of sexually violent criminal behavior beyond a reasonable doubt
be confined and treated until such time that it can be determined that they no longer present a threat to society.
A "sexually violent predator" is defined in section 6600, subdivision (a), as "a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against two or more victims for which he or she received a determinate sentence and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior." Sexually violent offenses, for purposes of the SVP law are listed in section 6600, subdivision (b). 2
Under section 6601, if the Director of the Department of Corrections determines that a prisoner may be a sexually violent predator, the Director shall refer that person for an initial screening evaluation at least six months prior to his or her scheduled release date. 3 (§ 6601, subds. (a) and (b).) If it is determined that the person is likely to be a sexually violent predator, he or she is then referred to the State Department of Mental Health for a full SVP evaluation. (§ 6601, subd. (b).)
The person is evaluated by two practicing psychiatrists or psychologists in accordance with a standardized assessment protocol. (§ 6601, subd. (c).)
If both of the evaluators find that the person "has a diagnosed mental disorder such that he or she is likely to engage in acts of sexual violence without appropriate treatment and custody," the Department of Mental Health requests a petition for commitment under section 6602 and forwards the evaluations and supporting documents to the county of the person's latest conviction. (§ 6601, subds. (d), and (i).) If the designated attorney concurs with the recommendation, a petition for commitment is filed in superior court. (§ 6601, subd. (i).)
A probable cause hearing is then held before a Superior Court judge. 4 The individual named in the petition is entitled to assistance of counsel at this hearing. If the judge determines there is probable cause to believe that the person is likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior upon his or her release from prison, the judge shall order that a trial be conducted "to determine whether the person is, by reason of diagnosed mental disorder, a danger to the health and safety of others in that the person is likely to engage in acts of sexual violence upon his or her release...." (§ 6602.)
The person subject to the petition is entitled to a trial by jury, the assistance of counsel and the right to retain experts or professional persons to perform further evaluations. He or she is also entitled to have access to all relevant medical and psychological records and reports. (§ 6603, subd. (a).) A unanimous verdict is required in any jury trial. (§ 6603, subd. (d).)
The burden of proof is on the state to show that the person is a sexually violent predator "beyond a reasonable doubt." (§ 6604.) If it is so determined, the person shall be committed for a period of two years "to the custody of the State Department of Mental Health for appropriate treatment and confinement in a secure facility...." The person shall not be kept in confinement longer than two years unless a new petition is filed and an extended commitment is obtained from the court. (Ibid.)
A person committed under the SVP law shall have an examination of his or her mental condition at least once every year, and is entitled to the appointment of an expert and to review all records. (§ 6605, subd. (a).) Unless the person affirmatively waives the right to a hearing, the superior court must annually set a show cause hearing to determine if the person's condition has so changed that he or she would not be a danger to the health and safety of others if released from confinement. (§ 6605, subd. (b).) If the court so finds, then the person is entitled to a full trial with the same rights and constitutional protections as were afforded at the initial commitment hearing. (§ 6605, subd. (d).) Also, at any time that the Department of Mental Health has reason to believe that the person is no longer an SVP, it must seek judicial review of the commitment. (§ 6605, subd. (f).)
Finally, the person can be placed on conditional release upon a finding that he or she is not likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal acts while under supervision and treatment in the community. (§ 6607.) A conditional release hearing may be held at any time after a year from the date of the commitment order, upon the recommendation of the Director of Mental Health or upon a petition by the SVP. (§ 6608.)
Any person committed as an SVP must be provided with treatment for his or her diagnosed mental disorder, whether or not it is found the person is amenable to treatment. (§ 6606, subds. (a) and (b).) The treatment "shall be consistent with current institutional standards for the treatment of sex offenders ...." (§ 6606, subd. (c).)
On January 2, 1996, the District Attorney of Santa Clara County filed a petition to commit Christopher Evans Hubbart as a sexually violent predator pursuant to section 6600. The petition alleged that Hubbart was presently a prison inmate due to be released January 25, 1996.
A declaration of the deputy district attorney stated that Hubbart qualified under section 6600 subdivision (b) as a sexually violent offender in that he had been convicted in 1982 of a violation of Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (c) [] and former Penal Code section 261, subdivision (2) [rape by force]. Furthermore, he had been committed to the California State Mental Hospital at Atascadero in 1973 pursuant to violations of former Penal Code section 261.3 [rape by force], Penal Code section 286 [sodomy] and Penal Code section 220 []. Hubbart was presently serving a sentence for violating Penal Code sections 236-237 [false imprisonment]. The declaration informed the court that the Director of the Department of Mental Health had requested Hubbart's commitment under section 6602 and that Hubbart had been evaluated by two practicing psychiatrists who concurred that he had a mental disorder such that, without appropriate treatment and custody, he was likely to engage in acts of sexual violence upon his release from prison.
The evaluations by licensed clinical psychologists Craig Nelson and Amy Phenix, both PhDs,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hedge
...addressing various constitutional questions concerning the Act are pending review before our Supreme Court: Hubbart v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1155, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 review granted February 26, 1997 (S052136); Garcetti v. Superior Court (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1533, 57 Cal.Rptr......
-
Parker, In re
...questions concerning the Act before Hendricks was decided are pending review before our Supreme Court: Hubbart v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1155, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 review granted February 26, 1997 (S052136); Garcetti v. Superior Court (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1533, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 4......
-
People v. Butler
...facto, double jeopardy, equal protection and due process provisions of the state and federal Constitutions. (Hubbart v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1155, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 268, review granted Feb. 26, 1997 (S052136).) Defendant petitioned the Supreme Court for review of our decision, ......
-
Edwards v. State
...is not being 'punished' for a crime."), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 964, 107 S.Ct. 465, 93 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986); Hubbart v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.App.4th 1155, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 268, 286 (6 Dist.1996)("[I]t would be singularly inappropriate to apply double jeopardy provisions to these types of proce......