P. v. Sumahit
Filed 7/18/07 P. v. Sumahit 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Tehama)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANK ROMAS SUMAHIT, Defendant and Appellant. | C054386 (Super. Ct. No. CR05058) |
In May 2006 a petition was filed seeking to recommit defendant Frank Romas Sumahit as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predators Act. (SVPA; Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.) In November 2006 a jury found the petition true. Defendant was committed to Coalinga State Hospital for an indefinite period.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred prejudicially when it failed to instruct the jury sua sponte on the issue of serious difficulty in controlling sexual behavior. We shall affirm the judgment.
FACTS
Defendants contention requires only a brief summary of relevant facts.
In March 1986 defendant was convicted of two counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under age 14. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a).) In July 1990 he was convicted of one count of that offense. At trial, it was stipulated that defendants prior convictions involved two or more victims.
The prosecution presented testimony from two psychologists, Drs. Robert Owen and Christopher North.
Dr. Owen diagnosed defendant with [p]edophilia with an attraction to girls, alcohol dependence, and a personality disorder with antisocial traits. Dr. Owen concluded that without the appropriate custody and treatment, defendant is likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior as a result of his diagnosed mental disorder.
Dr. North diagnosed defendant with [p]edophilia, sexually attracted to females, alcohol dependence in a controlled environment, and personality disorder with antisocial features. He opined that defendant is predatory and would be a high risk to reoffend if he is released from custody.
The defense presented testimony from a psychologist, Dr. Ted Donaldson. Dr. Donaldson concluded there was insufficient evidence for a diagnosis of pedophilia. Regarding the likelihood that defendant would reoffend, Dr. Donaldson concluded the upper level is around 10 percent, and it could be as low as 3 or 4 percent.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court erred prejudicially when it failed to instruct the jury sua sponte on the issue of serious difficulty in controlling sexual behavior. Acknowledging that the California Supreme Court has resolved the issue adversely to him in People v. Williams (2003) 31 Cal.4th 757 (Williams), defendant argues that Williams was wrongly decided and raises the issue in this court in order to preserve it for possible federal review.
Williams explained that the SVPA requires a diagnosed mental disorder affecting the persons emotional or volitional capacity that predisposes the person to commit sex crimes in a menacing degree. ( 6600, subd. (c).) We intimated in [People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti) (2002) 27 Cal.4th 888], 921, footnote 12, and confirm here, that this requirement alone implies serious difficulty in controlling behavior, as required by Kansas v. Crane [(2002) 534 U.S. 407 [151 L.Ed.2d 856, 121 S.Ct. 867]. [] A mental disorder that includes all the above-described elements -- including a dangerous impairment of capacity -- must additionally produce an actual risk of violent reoffense which, under all the applicable circumstances, is substantial, serious, and well-founded. [Citations.] Jurors instructed in these terms must necessarily understand that one is not eligible for commitment under the SVPA unless his or her capacity or ability to control violent criminal sexual behavior is seriously and dangerously impaired. No additional instructions or findings are necessary. (Williams, supra, 31 Cal.4th at pp. 776-777, fn. omitted.)
As defendant recognizes, Williams is binding upon this court. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) Accordingly, his claim of instructional error must fail.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
RAYE , J.
We concur:
DAVIS , Acting P.J.
MORRISON , J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.
