Yahn v. King, C-13-0855 EMC (pr)
| Decision Date | 06 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. C-13-0855 EMC (pr),C-13-0855 EMC (pr) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | MERTON GEORGE YAHN, Petitioner, v. AUDREY KING, Acting Executive Director, Respondent. |
Merton George Yahn filed this pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the proceedings in Lake County Superior Court to civilly commit him under California's Sexually Violent Predator Act ("SVPA"), see Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600 et seq. The petition has been fully briefed and is ready for decision. For the reasons discussed below, the petition will be denied on the merits.
Mr. Yahn was first civilly committed pursuant to the SVPA in 2003; his civil commitment was extended several times, and he now is in custody on an indeterminate term of commitment. In this action, he challenges the most recent civil commitment decision that was finally made on December 12, 2012 pursuant to a petition first filed on September 5, 2007.
The Court will first describe the relevant part of the SVPA regarding the duration (or term) of commitment, and then will describe the complicated procedural history of this particular case - all with an eye toward resolving Mr. Yahn's habeas claims that are based on the five-year delay between the filing of the petition and the holding of the trial thereon.
California's SVPA is codified at California Welfare & Institutions Code sections 6600-6609.3, and was first enacted in 1995. Until 2006, a person determined to be a sexually violent predator ("SVP") was committed to the custody of the California Department of Mental Health for a period of two years. See former Cal. Penal Code § 6604. Once that period expired, the State had to petition to extend the commitment for another two years, or the petitioner could be released.
Section 6604 was amended in late 2006 to change the commitment period from two years to an indeterminate commitment. See Resp. Ex. 9 at 6. After the 2006 amendment to section 6604, a person found to be an SVP would "be committed for an indeterminate term to the custody of the State Department of State Hospitals for appropriate treatment and confinement in a secure facility designated by the Director of State Hospitals." Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6604; see People v. McKee, 47 Cal. 4th 1172 (Cal. 2010). Although not relevant to the present dispute, the 2006 amendments also changed the procedures for discharge from custody of a person who has been committed for an indeterminate term. See Taylor v. San Diego County, 800 F.3d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 2015) ().
For those persons for whom a two-year commitment petition was pending but had not been adjudicated at the time of the 2006 amendments, the amended version of the SVPA was applied and the pending petitions were converted to petitions for indeterminate commitment. See Bourquez v. Superior Court, 156 Cal. App. 4th 1275, 1288-89 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). That particular point had to be resolved by the courts because the statutory amendments were silent on the point; the unsettled state of the law had a substantial impact on the progress in Mr. Yahn's case in state court. In 2010, the California Supreme Court announced a new rule that applied to a subset of SVPs whose commitment terms had been changed from two-year commitments to indeterminate commitments. In People v. Castillo, 49 Cal. 4th 145 (Cal. 2010), the court held that, where the district attorney stipulated to seek a two-year rather than an indeterminate extension of the commitment term due touncertainties as to whether the 2006 amendments to the SVPA would apply retroactively, that stipulation was binding on the State.
In 1984, Mr. Yahn was convicted of committing lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14. See Cal. Penal Code § 288(a). In 1990, Mr. Yahn was convicted of three counts of committing lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 and one count of indecent exposure. See Cal Penal Code §§ 288(a), 314(1). Resp. Ex. 2 at 1-2; Resp. Ex. 9 at 2. He was released on parole twice, once in 1999 and again in 2000, but was returned to custody for violating parole. Resp. Ex. 9 at 2.
In 2002, the Lake County District Attorney filed a petition seeking to have Mr. Yahn committed as an SVP. On November 20, 2003, Mr. Yahn was found to be an SVP and was committed to the Department of Mental Health ("DMH") for two years pursuant to the SVPA. See Resp. Ex. 9 at 2. The two-year period was to run from November 20, 2003 until November 20, 2005. This commitment is not at issue in this case.
In October 2005, the Lake County District Attorney filed the first petition to extend the commitment for another two years ("First Extension Petition"). See id. Following a jury trial in January 2007, Mr. Yahn was found to be an SVP and was committed for another two-year period. This two-year period was to run from November 21, 2005 to November 20, 2007. This commitment is not at issue in this case, but becomes quite important because of the state appellate court's decisions regarding it.
On September 5, 2007, the Lake County District Attorney filed a second petition to extend the commitment for another two years ("Second Extension Petition") in Lake County Superior Court. Resp. Ex. 2. This is the commitment petition that is at issue in this case.1
On October 26, 2007, a hearing was held on the Second Extension Petition. The minutes stated that the People "will submit on the probable cause hearing" and the Resp. Ex. 3. The court scheduled the probable cause hearing for December 7, 2007, although it did not actually begin until January 18, 2008. See Resp. Ex. 5.
At the first session of the probable cause hearing (on January 18, 2008), the State filed mental health reports and submitted the matter. Resp. Ex. 4.2 At the second session of the probable cause hearing (on January 28, 2008), the court had reviewed the mental health report from the prosecutor, and defense counsel stated he had talked to the defendant and that the defense "want[ed] to continue the matter for 2 more weeks to review further." Resp. Ex. 5. At the third session of the probable cause hearing (on February 19, 2008), the court found probable cause to set the matter for trial. Resp. Ex. 6. "At the request of defense counsel," the court set the matter for a trial readiness conference on April 7, 2008, and a jury trial on April 29, 2008. Id.
At the pretrial conference on April 7, 2008, the trial date was vacated by stipulation and "[t]ime continues to be waived." Resp. Ex. 7. At the request of counsel, a new trial readiness conference was set for August 4, 2008, and a jury trial was set for August 19, 2008. Id.
On August 4, 2008, at the trial readiness conference "[a]t the request of counsel," the trial date was reset for December 2, 2008. Resp. Ex. 8.
Meanwhile, Mr. Yahn had filed an appeal or a petition for writ of habeas corpus to challenge the First Extension Petition (i.e., the one that resulted in the 2005-2007 commitment term). The California Court of Appeal issued its opinion on September 12, 2008, and held, among other things, "that the version of the SVPA in effect at the time of trial applied, including the provision for an indeterminate term of commitment." Resp. Ex. 9 at 2; see id. at 8-12. The California Court ofAppeal concluded that the superior court had "erred in committing defendant for a two-year term" on the First Extension Petition "because, at the time of trial and judgment [in 2007], section 6604 specified that a person found to be an SVP 'shall be committed for an indeterminate term.'" Id. at 10. Regardless of whether "the prosecutor consented or agreed not to seek it, the [superior] court only had statutory authority to commit defendant for an indeterminate term." Id. at 11.3 The California Court of Appeal directed the superior court "to prepare a corrected commitment order" to commit Mr. Yahn to the custody of the DMH "for an indeterminate term." Id. at 20.
As a result of the California Court of Appeal's September 12, 2008 opinion requiring that the commitment on the First Extension Petition be changed from a two-year commitment to an indeterminate commitment term, a hearing was held on the Second Extension Petition on November 10, 2008, at which time the superior court indicated that the trial date would be vacated at the next hearing but took no formal action because defense counsel was not present due to illness. Resp. Ex. 10. On November 17, 2008, at the pretrial conference for the Second Extension Petition, the superior court stated that pursuant to the appellate court's decision, Mr. Yahn Resp. Ex. 11; see also Resp. Ex. 12.
On August 12, 2011, the California Court of Appeal reversed course and determined that the First Extension Petition should only have resulted in a two-year commitment period, rather than an indeterminate commitment term. See Resp. Ex. 13. The state appellate court granted Mr. Yahn's habeas petition in which he had contended that the indeterminate term ordered under the First Extension Petition should be modified to be a two-year term based on "principles enunciated by the California...
To continue reading
Request your trial