P. v. Jeffrey T.

Filed 6/20/06 P. v. Jeffrey T. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John S. Wiley, Jr., Judge. Order granting Welfare & Institutions Code Section 1800 extension of commitment affirmed.

Susan G. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez, and Robert F. Katz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant, Jeffrey T., appeals from the sustained petition finding that he has a current diagnosed mental disorder which poses a physical danger to the public and extending his confinement for two years. (Welf. & Inst. Code,^[1] §1800.) Defendant argues that his due process rights were violated by the trial court's findings and there was insufficient evidence to support its findings. This case was tried before our Supreme Court issued it's opinion construing section 1800 in the case of In re Howard N. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 117, 135 so the extension procedure complied with due process requirements. Nonetheless, the nature of the trial court's extensive findings were such there can be no doubt defendant falls within the scope of section 1800 as construed in Howard N. Any additional errors have been waived or are harmless.

II. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was committed to the California Youth Authority at age 17. (The California Youth Authority is now known as the Division of Juvenile Justice of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.) Defendant was committed following the January 29, 1999 juvenile court order sustaining the allegation in a delinquency petition of a violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). In that offense, defendant sodomized a 23-month-old boy. On August 19, 2002, defendant's commitment was extended to April 10, 2004, pursuant to section 1800.^[2] On December 26, 2003, the Youthful Offender Parole Board found that due to a mental or physical deficiency, disorder, or abnormality, defendant would be physically dangerous to the public if discharged from the youth authority. On January 8, 2004, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a petition to again extend defendant's commitment pursuant to section 1800. Pursuant to Evidence Code section 730, the trial court appointed Drs. Raymond Anderson and Kory Knapke to examine defendant. Drs. Anderson and Knapke were directed to prepare a report on defendant's current mental status within the meaning of section 1800. Defendant waived his right to a jury trial.

Dr. Sophia Johnson, a staff psychologist with the juvenile justice division, specialized in the treatment of sex offenders. Defendant had been assigned to Dr. Johnson's caseload since September 19, 2002. In May 2003, Dr. Johnson tested defendant extensively in connection with the section 1800 evaluation. Dr. Johnson determined that defendant's primary diagnosis was chronic pedophilia, based upon the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV. Dr. Johnson based her diagnosis on such factors as defendant's: history of child molestation; age at the time of the offense; and admitted proclivity to molesting both male and female children. Defendant began molesting children ages three to seven when he was nine years old himself. Defendant admitted he had molested a total of 14 victims. At the time he was transferred to Dr. Johnson's treatment team, defendant had twice attempted suicide. In addition to the pedophilia diagnosis, Dr. Johnson added borderline personality disorder with narcissistic features as well as a history of substance abuse.

Dr. Johnson also reviewed the reports of two other psychologists that diagnosed defendant with pedophilia. Dr. Johnson concluded defendant posed a high risk of physical danger to the public as a result of his pedophilia. Dr. Johnson formed her opinion based on a number of factors, including defendant's: failure to complete a formal sex offender program; continued sexual acting out; tendency to make light of his sexual problems; and minimization of the committing offense. Defendant had stated a preference for male victims and sadomasochistic fantasies. Defendant had orally copulated someone while working in the kitchen of the youth authority facility. Defendant wrote letters to other wards to manipulate them and then subsequently use them sexually. Defendant also exposed himself and was found to possess pornography. Dr. Johnson believed that if defendant were unable to refrain from violating the prison rules, he would be unable to refrain from acting out in the community. Defendant scored within a high risk category for both violence and sexual reoffending. Dr. Johnson believed that defendant posed a high risk and was dangerous. Defendant had engaged in sexual acting out with another male ward who was diagnosed as mildly mentally retarded. Defendant had written letters seeking sexual favors from that ward and another. Dr. Johnson did not believe defendant was benefiting from the treatment afforded him prior to the hearing. Dr. Johnson believed defendant would benefit from a formal sex offender program offered by the juvenile justice division.

Pam Scholwin, a juvenile justice division parole agent, oversaw the casework and treatment for the specialized counseling program where defendant was housed. Ms. Scholwin met with defendant's teachers, counselor, and psychologist every two months. At the meetings, they discussed defendant's progress in the program. In addition, Ms. Scholwin had informal staff meetings regarding defendant's progress. Ms. Scholwin believed defendant needed additional treatment in a sex offender treatment group as well as for purposes of decision making and anger management. Ms. Scholwin also testified that defendant wrote letters to other wards â€