P. v. Green
Filed 10/26/06 P. v. Green CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GLEN FOSTER GREEN, Defendant and Appellant. | A112823 (Solano County Super. Ct. No. VC17044) |
Counsel for appellant Glen Foster Green (appellant) has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Respondent petitioned on March 8, 2005 to extend the commitment of appellant as a sexually violent predator (SVP) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601.5). Appellant waived a probable cause hearing, as well as a jury trial. A bench trial was held on December 22 and 23, 2005, at the conclusion of which the court found that appellant was likely to reoffend and should be recommitted. The court set the maximum commitment date at March 11, 2007. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on January 11, 2006.
A contested issue raised by defense counsel in connection with the recommitment trial was the court’s denial of appellant’s request for a penile plethysmograph (PPG) test. Appellant sought to have the test administered by the state on the recommendation of a psychologist hired by the defense. The court issued an order on August 29, 2005, to carry out this test, but the Attorney General’s office objected, noting that it had not been given an opportunity to argue the issue. Additionally, the Attorney General argued that it was inappropriate to administer a PPG test because the test was inadmissible in court and was a poor indicator of an individual’s risk of reoffending. In response to this argument, the court vacated its earlier order[1] and set a hearing for September 28, 2005. At that hearing, the court denied appellant’s request to conduct the test at state expense. The court noted, however, that appellant had “the right to do [the test] another way” if he opted to pay for it himself.
We discern no error in the court’s denial of petitioner’s request for a state-funded PPG test. The denial of this request was well within the court’s discretion. The finding that the petition should be granted and appellant re-committed as a SVP was based on substantial evidence. At all times throughout the proceedings below, appellant was represented by counsel. Upon our independent review of the record we conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued or that require further briefing on appeal.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Ruvolo, P. J.
We concur:
_________________________
Reardon, J.
_________________________
Sepulveda, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.
[1] The court specified that it was setting aside “the Order of April 29, 2005,” but clearly was referring to its order of August 29, 2005.
