legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re DAVID WOODROW SMITH Part II

In re DAVID WOODROW SMITH Part II
07:17:2006

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€





Description Reversal of defendant's predicate sex-crime conviction does not preclude court from continuing with Sexually Violent Predator Act proceedings that had already begun. Trial court has jurisdiction over SVP proceeding initiated while defendant is in unlawful custody unless custody was obtained in bad faith. Custody of defendant was not obtained in bad faith where conviction was reversed based on trial judge's error of statutory interpretation in attempting to provide jurors with guidance in response to a question submitted during deliberations, an interpretation sufficiently reasonable to be affirmed by court of appeal, although reversed by supreme court. Statute eliminating punitive consequences of conviction after new trial is ordered does not bar SVP Act proceedings which are not considered punitive.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale