People v. Hubbs
| Decision Date | 19 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | D077636 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NORMAN JAMES HUBBS, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
NORMAN JAMES HUBBS, Defendant and Appellant.
D077636
California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
January 19, 2023
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FBABS700108, Lorenzo R. Balderrama, Judge. Affirmed.
Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorneys General, Steve Oetting and Heather B. Arambarri, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.
O'ROURKE, J.
Norman James Hubbs appeals a judgment committing him to the Department of State Hospitals in Coalinga, California for an indeterminate term for treatment and confinement as a sexually violent predator (SVP)
under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA; Welf. &Inst. Code,[1] § 6600 et seq.) following a court finding that he is an SVP.
Hubbs does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the finding that he is an SVP. Instead, he contends: (1) the long delays in bringing his case to trial violated his due process rights; and, his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to dismiss the petition based on the delays; (2) the trial court violated his due process right to counsel by denying his April 2019 Marsden motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden)); (3) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence "tens of thousands of pages of exhibits without addressing or evaluating [his] objections," thus violating his rights to due process and a fair trial; (4) the court erred by admitting into evidence case specific hearsay in violation of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez); and counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to such evidence; (5) the court erred by denying his equal protection claim that the principles set forth in Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 (Crawford) to the commitment of persons found not guilty of crimes by reason of insanity (NGI's) in Penal Code section 1026.5, subdivision (b)(7), should also apply to SVPA proceedings; and (6) there was cumulative error. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[2]
In July 1999, the People filed a petition to commit Hubbs as an SVP under former provisions of the SVPA. In July 2003, a jury found Hubbs to be an SVP and the trial court committed him to a state hospital for a two-year term. This court affirmed the commitment on direct appeal. (People v. Hubbs (Oct. 11, 2005, D043625) [nonpub. opn.] (Hubbs 1).) In March 2005, the People filed a petition to recommit Hubbs as an SVP under the former provisions of the SVPA. On April 13, 2006, a jury found Hubbs to be an SVP and the trial court recommitted him to a state hospital for another two-year term. On February 20, 2008, this court reversed the commitment and remanded the case for a new trial, finding that Hubbs's counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request funding for and timely retain defense experts. (Hubbs 2, supra, D048607.)
On March 27, 2007, the People filed another petition to recommit Hubbs as an SVP. They amended that petition to request an indeterminate term, and moved to consolidate the second and third petitions. On May 9, 2008, following this court's reversal of the 2006 judgment, the trial court granted the motion to consolidate.
Over the course of eight hearings held during 2007, Hubbs requested substitution of counsel. A new attorney, James Gass, eventually was appointed to represent Hubbs in December 2007.
In 2008, six hearings were held following this court's reversal and remand on the second petition. The People moved to consolidate the second and third petitions. Defense counsel joined in a motion on Hubbs's behalf
regarding the use of underground regulations in SVP assessment protocols, and the case was continued for that purpose.
In 2009, the trial court continued the case a number of times in an attempt to accommodate Hubbs's request that he appear at the hearings telephonically. On October 27, 2009, the People indicated they were ready for the matter to proceed to trial; however, defense counsel informed the court Hubbs wished to delay it because "he ha[d] a lawsuit pending against the county, and he [did not] want to come back to county jail until his lawsuit" was over. Both parties also stated they had not yet secured their expert witnesses. On November 3, 2009, the court set trial for February 8, 2010.
In January 2010, the court vacated the scheduled jury trial because Gass requested more time in order to secure an expert. Gass subsequently filed a motion for new evaluators in June 2010, pursuant to In re Ronje (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 509, claiming he was entitled to new evaluations conducted under a valid protocol.[3] At a July 2010 hearing, the trial court granted the motion, finding Hubbs was entitled to new evaluations and a new probable cause hearing. The court found probable cause at a hearing on January 18, 2011. In December 2011, Gass stated he was not ready for trial as his request for funds to hire an expert was denied.
At a March 2012 hearing, Gass stated Hubbs had undergone multiple surgeries for hip replacements and did not want to proceed to trial until his rehabilitation was completed. The court set trial for December 2012; however, at a November 2012 status hearing, Gass stated Hubbs was still dealing with medical issues and was on an intravenous antibiotic. Gass requested the trial be continued or conducted telephonically. The People indicated readiness for trial.
In the subsequent hearings leading up to the March 2013 trial, the court continued the case for various reasons, including Gass's engagement in a murder trial and Hubbs's unwillingness to proceed to trial because of his medical issues. The court later denied Hubbs's request to delay his trial another "six or eight months."
On March 14, 2013, the matter went to trial, after which the court found Hubbs was an SVP and ordered him committed to a state hospital for an indeterminate term. Hubbs appealed. On December 19, 2014, this court reversed the recommitment, finding cumulative error rendered the 2013 trial unfair. We remanded for a new trial. (Hubbs 3, supra, D063955.)
In February 2015, we issued our remittitur.
In April 2015, the San Bernardino County Public Defender's Office took over Hubbs's representation and Deputy Public Defender Charlene McKinley-Powell was assigned to the case. Between August 2015 and May 2016, Hubbs executed three waivers of his speedy trial right under People v. Litmon (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 383 (Litmon). His waivers stated: "I understand that this request may affect my rights and remedies of due process under [Litmon]. Specifically, I understand that I have a right to a speedy trial. However, by requesting postponement of my case, I understand that I waive my right to a speedy trial under Litmon. I authorize my attorney to waive time on my
behalf to prepare for trial and obtain witnesses and records." On August 6, 2015, Hubbs signed such a waiver agreeing to delay his hearing for six months. On January 14, 2016, he signed another such waiver delaying his hearing for three months. On May 11, 2016, Hubbs agreed to a third waiver for an "indefinite" amount of time.
On December 9, 2016, the court held a status conference and set trial for July 2017. In April 2017, McKinley-Powell told the court Hubbs had agreed that "sometime in the fall" would be a "more realistic date" and the court scheduled trial for October 2017. Between September 2017 and February 2019, the court continued Hubbs's trial date for various reasons, including McKinley-Powell's involvement in another trial and the need for updated reports and evaluations on Hubbs.
On March 19, 2019, Hubbs in a letter moved the court to dismiss the SVP petition under People v. Superior Court (Vasquez) (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 36 (Vasquez).[4] He alleged he had suffered delays in bringing his case to trial
as well as a breakdown of the public defender's system. He further stated he had spoken to McKinley-Powell about filing a Vasquez motion, but she had advised him that he lacked a basis because of his two prior trials. Hubbs claimed McKinley-Powell advised him that he if raised the Vasquez issue, she could not represent him because she would have a conflict of interest. As a result, the court might appoint a new attorney from the conflict panel, and this would not benefit him given his previous difficulties with an attorney from that panel. Hubbs alternatively requested that the court grant his Marsden motion and appoint a new attorney to file a Vasquez motion on his behalf.
On April 18, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on what the court called a "Vasquez/Marsden motion," to address Hubbs's letter. A supervising deputy public defender appeared along with McKinley-Powell and argued Hubbs did not present a valid Vasquez claim. The court denied Hubbs's motion, finding that a Vasquez motion was not appropriate because Hubbs had been brought to trial twice, he executed waivers under Litmon, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th 383, and his case was continued due to health issues and writ proceedings.
In February 2020, Hubbs waived his right to a jury trial.
In June 2020, the trial court found that Hubbs was an SVP and ordered him committed to a state hospital for an indeterminate term. Hubbs appeals from that order.
DISCUSSION
I. Speedy Trial/Due Process Claim
Hubbs contends: "From March 2005 through [his] March 2020 trial, his case was delayed approximately 15 years. However, if this court considers only the delay involved with [his] specific complaints, the delay still extended for nearly 10 years." He contends "the long delays caused by the prior two trials which resulted in judgments that needed to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial