Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Martinez

P. v. Martinez

Filed 1/31/07 P. v. Martinez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

JOE MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

F049500

(Super. Ct. No. VCF029817)

OPINION

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Paul Vortmann, Judge.

Susan K. Keiser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Stan Cross, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Sarah J. Farhat, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

This is an appeal from an order for commitment of appellant Joe Martinez as a sexually violent predator (SVP) as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600, the SVP law. Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish one of the elements required for commitment under the SVP law, namely, that appellant has a mental disorder that currently makes it likely appellant will engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior unless confined within a secure facility. We will conclude that the evidence, while contested, was sufficient to permit a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant, â€

Description	This is an appeal from an order for commitment of appellant as a sexually violent predator (SVP) as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600, the SVP law. Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish one of the elements required for commitment under the SVP law, namely, that appellant has a mental disorder that currently makes it likely appellant will engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior unless confined within a secure facility. Court conclude that the evidence, while contested, was sufficient to permit a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant, "because of a current mental disorder which makes it difficult or impossible to restrain violent sexual behavior, - presents a substantial danger, that is, a serious and well founded risk, that he or she will commit such crimes if free in the community." (People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti) (2002) 27 Cal.4th 888, 922 (Ghilotti).) Accordingly, court affirm the judgment.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.