People v. White
| Decision Date | 19 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | B267529 |
| Citation | 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 1,3 Cal.App.5th 433 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Earl WHITE, Defendant and Appellant. |
Vanessa Place, Los angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The issue in this case is whether a defendant's various mental conditions,1 including frotteuristic disorder, exhibitionist disorder, bipolar disorder, and anti-social disorder, which two experts opined would likely result in future acts of sexual battery, satisfy the requirement of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, et seq. )2 that a defendant “will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.” We hold that the trial court properly interpreted the statutory language of the SVPA in finding that under the circumstances in this case sexual battery constitutes sexually violent criminal behavior.
Following a bench trial, the trial court found defendant and appellant Robert White to be a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP). The court's written statement of decision examined two portions of section 6600, subdivision (a) —the requirement that defendant suffered a conviction of a “sexually violent offense,” and the additional requirement that due to his mental disorder defendant is likely to engage in predatory “sexually violent criminal behavior.” The court determined that two requirements are not synonymous, and the latter provision is broader than the former.
Defendant contends that (1) the trial court incorrectly defined the SVPA's requirement of “sexually violent criminal behavior”; and (2) assuming the trial court used the correct definition, the phrase “sexually violent criminal behavior” is void for vagueness. We affirm.
Defendant was the subject of a sustained juvenile delinquency petition for assault with a deadly weapon in 1975. Defendant pleaded guilty in 1979 to assault to commit rape after walking up behind a woman on the street, grabbing her breast and crotch, restraining her, and telling her he would kill her if she did not let him touch her. He then “hump[ed]” her, and made motions to unzip his pants. The victim screamed. Defendant fled and was ultimately chased down by a neighbor.
In 1981, defendant was charged with indecent exposure, disorderly conduct, soliciting a lewd act, and immoral acts before a child. He was convicted of immoral acts before a child. The record does not contain any official description of this offense. Defendant said he had been urinating in public.
In April 1983, defendant was convicted of indecent exposure. Defendant approached a female stranger in a parking lot, unzipped his pants, exposed his penis, and asked, “do you want some of this?”
In October 1983, defendant was charged with annoying or molesting a child, assault to commit rape, rape, fighting, disorderly conduct, and soliciting a lewd act. The charges were dismissed. According to a report, a woman was getting into her parked car when defendant suddenly approached her on his bike and said, “Do you want to suck my big dick?” She was afraid, did not respond, and got into her car. Defendant then said, “Do you want to see my big dick?” She was extremely fearful and quickly left. When police found defendant, he initially lied about what he had been doing, but then said that he knew they were stopping him because he had “made comments about her ass.”
In December 1984, defendant was charged with sexual battery and convicted of battery after approaching two different women in a grocery store and fondling their buttocks. The store manager and employees saw this occur through a two-way mirror. Defendant was on probation at the time. He initially denied touching the women, but later claimed his suitcase bumped into one of the women. Three days before this incident, police investigated defendant for touching a female victim on her buttocks, but no charges were brought because the victim was unwilling to sign a complaint report.
In July 1998, defendant was convicted of sexual battery after walking into a children's clothing store with his hand in his pocket. He approached the female store clerk while she was behind the register. The clerk feared that he had a weapon in his pocket. As she walked to the front of the cash register, defendant pinned her against the counter with his body with her back towards him. She could feel something poking her in the buttocks. Defendant grabbed the left side of her buttocks, moved his hand up her left side, and grabbed her breast. When the clerk turned around, defendant let her go and walked to the back of the store. She remained in the front of the store. Defendant walked toward the clerk and bumped into her, causing her to knock over some items on the display table. She believed that she would have been raped if it was not for a nearby restaurant with an open patio to the rear of the store. Defendant was on parole at the time of this offense. He initially denied the incident, later stated he bumped into a woman at a store and should have apologized, and finally said that he just slapped a woman on the butt.
In May 1999, defendant was arrested for sexual battery and convicted of battery. Defendant walked through a grocery store with his hand in his pocket. He deliberately bumped into a female stranger as she walked down the aisle. She believed that she felt his penis through his clothing. She continued to walk through the store. While in the checkout line, defendant walked up to her from behind and intentionally bumped his body into her buttocks. Defendant was on parole at the time.
In October 2000, while on parole, defendant was charged with battery and making criminal threats. Defendant was drinking with a man at the man's residence. The two got into an argument. Defendant punched the man in the face and then fled. The man drove to locate defendant. Once defendant was located, he grabbed the man by the throat. The man fled in fear for his life. The next day, defendant returned to the man's house and threatened the man's wife by saying, “the first chance I get I'm going to rape you and fuck the shit out of you.”
Defendant was convicted of sexual battery in 2001, for rubbing his erect penis against a woman on a bus. While standing, he leaned into a woman and pushed his erect penis into her shoulder. She leaned away but he continued to press his penis into her shoulder. After she exited the bus, defendant stood behind a female juvenile and began pressing his erect penis into her buttocks area. The juvenile did not feel anything because she had her sweatshirt wrapped around her waist.
Defendant incurred 47 serious prison rules violations while incarcerated, including six sex offenses, three acts of physical aggression, three threatening acts, two instances of possessing weapons, and 11 instances of verbal aggression. The sexual incidents include asking to masturbate in front of a female intern, exposing his erect penis, and masturbating in front of female staff. Defendant was sent to Coalinga State Hospital in 2008 after a parole violation.
At Coalinga, defendant engaged in instances of indecent exposure, verbal sexual aggression, verbal non-sexual aggression, and property damage. Between April 2009 and June 2011, there were 13 indecent exposures, 11 acts of physical aggression, and 33 threats. Between July 2011 to November 2013, there were 12 exposures, 22 acts of physical aggression, 36 threats, 10 instances of verbal sexual aggression, 46 verbal nonsexual aggression, 39 property damage, and 14 instances of contraband possession. From December 2013 through July 2015, there were two exposures documented, one act of physical aggression, three threats, two acts of verbal sexual aggression, four acts of nonsexual verbal aggression, two property damage, and two instances of possession of contraband. There were additional acts of misconduct including frequent sexual comments to female staff, grabbing his clothed penis, and exposing himself to a female medical technician.
Defendant's psychiatric diagnoses
Dr. Damon, holder of a Ph.D in clinical psychology, has prepared SVP evaluations in various capacities with the Department of State Hospitals since 2007. Dr. Damon evaluated defendant in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2014, and 2015. Defendant was interviewed by Dr. Damon in 2008, 2014, and 2015.
Dr. Damon concluded that defendant suffers from frotteuristic disorder in a controlled environment, exhibitionist disorder in a controlled environment, severe alcohol use disorder in a controlled environment, severe cocaine use disorder in sustained remission in a controlled environment, severe phencyclidine use disorder in sustained remission in a controlled environment, mild cannabis use disorder in a controlled environment, and antisocial personality disorder.
Dr. Damon described frotteuristic disorder as including at least six months of intense sexually arousing fantasies, urges or behaviors involving touching or rubbing against a non-consenting person, and causing stress or impairment in important areas of function. Defendant “has a longstanding pattern of approaching females and touching or grabbing their breasts, vaginal areas or buttocks or touching, rubbing or humping his penis into their bodies.”
Defendant's behavior has spanned 22 years, including while in the community on supervised release.
Exhibitionism involves recurrent sexual fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving exposing the genitals to a non-consenting person. Defendant “has a longstanding pattern of exposing his genitals to females,” including while in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Frandsen
...to apply a legal standard to real-world facts." ( Id. at p. 838, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 534.)Likewise, the court in People v. White (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 433, 453–454, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, held the term "sexually violent criminal behavior" contained in the Sexually Violent Predator Act ( Welf. & Inst......
-
People v. Tarkington
...Cal.Rptr.3d 59, 339 P.3d 344 ; In re C.H ., supra , 53 Cal.4th at p. 107, 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 573, 264 P.3d 357 ; People v. White (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 433, 447, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 1.) And, we must accord significance to every word in a statute and avoid a construction that renders words surplusage......
-
In re White
...manufacture of methamphetamine, an enhancement in count 2 ( Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11383, subd. (c) & 11370.2, subd. (b) ). ( White , supra , E034877, at p. 2.)On count 1, the jury was instructed on second degree implied malice murder and second degree felony murder. The evidence showed tha......
-
People v. Burroughs
...mental disorder makes it likely the defendant will engage in ‘sexually violent criminal behavior.’ [Citation.]" (People v. White (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 433, 448, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ; see also § 6600, subd. (a)(1).) The second and third elements require a link between a currently diagnosed ment......