P. v. Christian
Filed 7/6/07 P. v. Christian CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yolo)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KENNETH WILLIAM CHRISTIAN, Defendant and Appellant. | C052741 (Super. Ct. No. 44363) |
A petition was filed to extend the commitment of defendant Kenneth William Christian as a sexually violent predator (SVP). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6604.1, subd. (b).) Waiving his right to a jury trial and to confront and cross-examine witnesses, defendant submitted the matter on the written doctors reports for both the probable cause hearing regarding the matter and the decision whether he should be recommitted as a SVP. He did so with the understanding that different doctors would evaluate him regarding a subsequent recommitment proceeding.
The trial court reviewed the reports of Dr. Douglas Korpi and Dr. Robert Owen and concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is a SVP who had been convicted of sexually violent offenses against two or more victims (four female victims, ages three, seven, nine and eleven years old, four counts of Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a), 289, subd. (j), in 1985, 1991, 1992) had a diagnosed mental disorder (pedophilia, sexually attracted to females, nonexclusive type) which made him a danger to the health and safety of others, and was likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior (moderate to high risk category for reoffending). Defendant appeals.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record,
we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment (order of recommitment) is affirmed.
SCOTLAND, P.J.
We concur:
DAVIS , J.
HULL, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
