P. v. Dodd
Filed 4/11/07 P. v. Dodd CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EMMETT DODD, Defendant and Appellant. | F050881 (Super. Ct. No. FP003458A) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Gary T. Friedman, Judge.
John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
____________________
*Before Harris, A.P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.
On December 22, 2005, the Kern County District Attorney filed a petition to extend appellant Emmett Earl Dodds involuntary civil commitment pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6604 et seq. On July 20, 2006, after a jury found that Dodd was a sexually violent predator, the court ordered him recommitted beginning April 4, 2006, and ending on April 4, 2008. On appeal, Dodd contends the court committed instructional error. We will affirm.
DISCUSSION
Dodd contends the court erred by its failure to instruct the jury sua sponte on difficulty of controlling sexual behavior with an instruction similar to the following: Regarding the emotional or volitional capacity of a diagnosed mental disorder which predisposes a person to the commission of criminal sexual acts, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt of serious difficulty in controlling behavior. We disagree.
This identical contention was rejected by the California Supreme Court in People v. Williams (2003) 31 Cal.4th 757, 764. Further, since we are bound by the decisions of our Supreme Court (Auto Equity, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455), in accord with Williams, we reject Dodds contention.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
