In re DAVID WOODROW SMITH
Filed 7/10/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
In re DAVID WOODROW SMITH, on Habeas Corpus. | B184548 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. ZM007064, NA052811) |
PETITION for writ of habeas corpus. Writ denied.
David Woodrow Smith, in pro. per.; and J. Courtney Shevelson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.
Steve Cooley, District Attorney, Brentford J. Ferreira, Phyllis C. Asayama and Rebecca Marie Madrid, Deputy District Attorneys, for Respondent.
_______________________
Story Continue from Part I……….
The SVP Act is concerned with the present offense or conviction only for gatekeeping and administrative purposes. First, incarceration is a hook to identify the subject population: the requirement of a present conviction defines the target population subject to SVP screening and subsequent proceedings as the universe of prison inmates. This is of course due to, and consistent with, the stated legislative motivation of preventing sexually violent offenders who are likely to offend again from rejoining the general population. Second, the prior conviction offers a mechanism for allocating SVP proceedings by county. Rather than burden the district attorney's office or the courts in the vicinity of state prisons with all the involuntary commitment proceedings pertaining to the inmates held there, the responsibility is spread by directing SVP proceedings to be heard in the county where the offender's conviction leading to the present incarceration took place. Once the screening is performed and the court in which to proceed is identified, the present conviction ceases to be relevant to the SVP process, which focuses entirely on the question of whether the inmate who has committed sexually violent and predatory crimes in the past has a mental disorder such that it is likely that he or she will reoffend if released without treatment. (§§ 6600, 6602, 6604.) This is in keeping with the legislative goal of preventing the release of a class of sexually dangerous offenders into the populace.
Section 6601, subdivision (a)(2) also reflects the primacy of the Legislature's intent to keep violent sex offenders out of the community over concerns about the legality of their confinement. The SVP Act expressly permits commitment proceedings to continue even if the custody on which they were initially premised turns out to be unlawful, provided that it was not in bad faith, in order to ensure that prisoners who are likely SVPs are not able to avoid the SVP process if their custody is later found to be unlawful. The Legislature explained the purpose for this provision: â€