The People v. Castillo, No. S171163.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Writing for the CourtGEORGE, C.J
Citation109 Cal.Rptr.3d 346,230 P.3d 1132,49 Cal.4th 145
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,v.Javier CASTILLO, Defendant and Appellant.
Decision Date24 May 2010
Docket NumberNo. S171163.

49 Cal.4th 145
230 P.3d 1132
109 Cal.Rptr.3d 346

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Javier CASTILLO, Defendant and Appellant.

No. S171163.

Supreme Court of California

May 24, 2010.


230 P.3d 1133

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Rudy Kraft, San Luis Obispo, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Michael P. Judge, Public Defender (Los Angeles), Albert J. Menaster and Jack T. Weedin, Deputy Public Defenders, for Public Defender of Los Angeles County as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Steve Cooley, District Attorney (Los Angeles), Irene Wakabayashi, Head Deputy District Attorney, and Jennifer C. McDonald, Deputy District Attorney, for District Attorney of Los Angeles County as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General Lawrence M. Daniels, Susan Sullivan Pithey and Chung L. Mar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

GEORGE, C.J.

230 P.3d 1134
We granted review to determine whether the Court of Appeal erred by modifying the term of appellant's civil commitment as a sexually violent predator from two years-the term agreed to by the Los Angeles County District Attorney, the Los Angeles County Public Defender, and the Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, pursuant to a signed stipulation-to an indeterminate term, as provided by Proposition 83's amendments to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6604. We reverse the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal, and enforce the stipulation.
I.
A.

In 1985, Javier Castillo was convicted of two counts of committing lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 years by use of force, violence, or fear (Pen.Code, § 288, subd. (b)), and was sentenced to a six-year term in state prison. In 1992, he was convicted of an additional charge of committing lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 years ( id., subd. (a)), and was sentenced to an eight-year term in prison. Thereafter, in October 1999, Castillo was committed to Coalinga State Hospital as a sexually violent predator (SVP) as defined under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) ( Welf. & Inst.Code, §§ 6600-6609.3; see generally Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1143, 1147, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492, 969 P.2d 584 [confirming the constitutionality of the SVPA as a civil commitment program] ).1

In August 2001, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (District Attorney) filed a petition seeking to extend Castillo's commitment for a two-year period. (Welf. & Inst. Code, former § 6604, added by Stats.1995, ch. 763, § 3, pp. 5925-5926 [setting forth a two-year term for extension of commitment].) Apparently, Castillo, through his counsel, stipulated to continuance of trial on the commitment extension, and no such trial was held. Thereafter, in October 2003, the District Attorney filed a second petition to extend Castillo's commitment for another successive two-year period. Again, apparently, trial on the commitment extension was continued, and no trial was held. Eventually, the two cases were consolidated. Subsequently, in September 2005, the District Attorney filed a third petition to extend Castillo's commitment for yet another successive two-year period, to October 5, 2007. In January 2006, the three cases were consolidated for belated trial.

B.

By mid-April 2006, the initiative measure subsequently denominated Proposition 83 (The Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act: Jessica's Law) had qualified for the November 2006 ballot. That measure proposed to amend the SVPA, and other related statutes, in numerous and wide-ranging ways. (See Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2006) analysis by Legis. Analyst of Prop. 83, pp. 43-44, id., text of Prop. 83, at pp. 127-138.) As relevant here, Proposition 83 proposed to adopt the approach followed by all other states with SVP civil commitment laws, by providing that a person found to be an SVP would be involuntarily committed, not for a term of two years, but instead indefinitely. (Voter Information Guide, text of Prop. 83 § 2, subd. (k), at p. 127, id., § 27, at p. 137 [describing the indeterminate-term procedures of other states]; id., § 27, at p. 137 [setting forth an indeterminate

230 P.3d 1135
term, in revised § 6004].) Even before Proposition 83 officially qualified for the ballot, but in light of that impending initiative measure, Senate Bill No. 1128 (2005-2006 Reg. Sess.), the Sex Offender Punishment, Control, and Containment Act of 2006 (Senate Bill No. 1128), was introduced in the Legislature as urgency legislation-meaning that if passed by both houses of the Legislature by a two-thirds vote, it would become effective upon signature of the Governor, prior to the November election. As amended in early March 2006, Senate Bill No. 1128 proposed numerous amendments to various statutes and to the existing SVPA, including the change described immediately above: it proposed to provide that a person found to be an SVP be committed, not for a term of two years, but indefinitely. (Sen. Bill No. 1128, § 63, as amended Mar. 7, 2009, pp. 104-105.)

The Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 1128, and the Governor signed it as urgency legislation, effective September 20, 2006, thereby amending the SVPA in the same manner then proposed by Proposition 83-that is, providing for indefinite commitment of a person determined to be an SVP. (Stats.2006, ch. 337, § 55 [amending § 6004].) 2

As recently observed in People v. Taylor (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 920, 933, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 756 ( Taylor ), the SVPA, as amended by Senate Bill No. 1128 and subsequently by Proposition 83, “is not a model of legislative drafting.” Neither Senate Bill No. 1128, nor Proposition 83, amended section 6601, subdivision (a)(2) of the SVPA. That subdivision, which expressly authorizes the commitment of persons who are “in custody” pursuant to a prison term, a parole revocation term, or a temporary custody “hold” pending further evaluation, specifies who may be committed for treatment by the State Department of Mental Health in a manner that implicitly excludes those persons who currently are committed as SVP's.3 Moreover, nowhere in the statutes as amended by Senate Bill No. 1128, and subsequently by Proposition 83, is there any mention of recommitment petitions-that is, proceedings to extend the terms of individuals currently committed as SVP's; both Senate Bill No. 1128 and Proposition 83 were silent concerning the applicability of these measures to petitions pending on the date those changes became effective. Indeed, both Senate Bill No. 1128 and Proposition 83 amended former section 6604 to delete any reference to recommitments or extension of commitments, or related procedures.4 As a result, after the 2006 amendments enacted by Senate Bill No. 1128 and Proposition 83, the SVPA no longer contains any express statutory provision authorizing recommitment of a person previously committed

230 P.3d 1136
to the State Department of Mental Health for treatment as an SVP.
C.

On October 11, 2006, the District Attorney, the Los Angeles County Public Defender (Public Defender), and the Los Angeles County Superior Court entered into a stipulation. It read as follows:

“On September 20, 2006 Senate Bill 1128, urgency legislation, was signed into law by the Governor. Additionally a ballot initiative commonly known as ‘Jessica's Law’ is on the ballot in November of 2006. The legislation and the initiative include language which would lengthen the term of commitment for a SVP from two years to an indeterminate term. Due to uncertainty in the retroactive application of this change, it is the intention of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office to apply the current [5] two year commitment period to all currently pending initial commitment petitions, as limited below, for cases in which the trial and commitment occur after the effective date of the legislation or the initiative[,] whichever occurs first, hereafter ‘effective date.’ For all cases in which an initial commitment petition is filed after the effective date of the legislation, the District Attorney's office will seek the indeterminate term.


24 Month Time Limit

“The District Attorney's Office will apply the two year commitment period to pending initial petitions for 24 months after the effective date. For cases in which the initial order of commitment is issued 24 months or more after the effective date, the District Attorney's Office will seek an indeterminate commitment. The Public Defender's Office does not waive its right to challenge either SB1128 or ‘Jessica's Law,’ assuming that the latter is passed in November 2006.

Recommitment Petitions

“For SVPs who have been committed and currently have a pending re-commitment petition for an extended commitment, the District Attorney's Office will file additional petitions for extended commitments as they become timely pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code § 6604.1. The District Attorney's office will use the filing criteria and commitment period in effect at the time of filing the re-commitment petitions. If a pending 2 year re-commitment petition filed prior to the effective date of the bill and/or initiative has not been tried prior to the expiration of the two-year commitment period and a new petition is timely filed after the effective date, the District Attorney's Office will pursue an indeterminate term.


Evaluation Criteria

“Cases which are pending for initial commitment or are evaluated for re-commitment prior to the effective date of the legislation and/or initiative will be evaluated based upon criteria currently present in the SVP statutes. Any initial petition or re-commitment petition filed on or after the effective date of the legislation and/or initiative will be evaluated based upon the language of the legislation or initiative as passed.


“...

To continue reading

Request your trial
126 practice notes
  • Avenida San Juan P'ship v. City of San Clemente, Nos. G043479
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 14, 2012
    ...will approve such a dwelling. The City will be judicially estopped in the future to change that position. (See People v. Castillo (2010) 49 Cal.4th 145, 155, 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 346, 230 P.3d 1132 [judicial estoppel prevents a “ ‘ “ ‘party from gaining an advantage by [201 Cal.App.4th 1280]taki......
  • Avenida San Juan P'ship v. City of San Clemente, Nos. G043479
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 14, 2011
    ...will approve such a dwelling. The City will be judicially estopped in the future to change that position. (See People v. Castillo (2010) 49 Cal.4th 145, 155, 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 346, 230 P.3d 1132 [judicial estoppel prevents a “ ‘ “ ‘party from gaining an advantage by [201 Cal.App.4th 1280] tak......
  • People v. Dryg, H036092
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 19, 2012
    ...also MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co., Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 412, 422 . . . .)" (People v. Castillo (2010) 49 Cal.4th 145, 155.) Appellant argues that the California Attorney General (A.G.) took inconsistent positions and points to two letters from the A.G., a......
  • The People v. Tate, No. S031641.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • September 1, 2010
    ...We have consistently rejected efforts to augment an appellate record with matters not before the trial court. ( People v. Castillo (2010) 49 Cal.4th 145, 157, 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 346, 230 P.3d 1132) [judicial notice]; see People v. Peevy (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1184, 1207, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 865, 953 P.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
126 cases
  • Avenida San Juan P'ship v. City of San Clemente, Nos. G043479
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 14, 2012
    ...will approve such a dwelling. The City will be judicially estopped in the future to change that position. (See People v. Castillo (2010) 49 Cal.4th 145, 155, 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 346, 230 P.3d 1132 [judicial estoppel prevents a “ ‘ “ ‘party from gaining an advantage by [201 Cal.App.4th 1280]taki......
  • Avenida San Juan P'ship v. City of San Clemente, Nos. G043479
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 14, 2011
    ...will approve such a dwelling. The City will be judicially estopped in the future to change that position. (See People v. Castillo (2010) 49 Cal.4th 145, 155, 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 346, 230 P.3d 1132 [judicial estoppel prevents a “ ‘ “ ‘party from gaining an advantage by [201 Cal.App.4th 1280] tak......
  • People v. Dryg, H036092
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 19, 2012
    ...also MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co., Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 412, 422 . . . .)" (People v. Castillo (2010) 49 Cal.4th 145, 155.) Appellant argues that the California Attorney General (A.G.) took inconsistent positions and points to two letters from the A.G., a......
  • The People v. Tate, No. S031641.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • September 1, 2010
    ...We have consistently rejected efforts to augment an appellate record with matters not before the trial court. ( People v. Castillo (2010) 49 Cal.4th 145, 157, 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 346, 230 P.3d 1132) [judicial notice]; see People v. Peevy (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1184, 1207, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 865, 953 P.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT