PEOPLE v. SOKOLSKY
Mark Sokolsky appeals from a jury verdict adjudicating him a sexually violent predator under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 et seq. (Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA)).[1] Appellant argues he is entitled to a hearing on his right to represent himself in propria persona in this court. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of his risk of reoffending, and contends that his involuntary commitment violates his due process rights. Appellant asserts that the Static-99 test employed by the psychological evaluators should not have been admitted without an evidentiary hearing under People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24 (Kelly). Respondent contends that the two-year commitment imposed was unauthorized under Proposition 83.
In the published portion of this opinion we conclude appellant has no right to self-representation on appeal and that summary denial of his application was not an abuse of discretion. We decline appellants renewed request to represent himself made at oral argument. We also agree with respondent that the proper term of commitment was indeterminate and modify the term of commitment on that ground. In the unpublished portion of this opinion (parts II and III) we find sufficient evidence of appellants risk of reoffending and reject his argument that a Kelly hearing was required as to the Static-99 test. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Comments on PEOPLE v. SOKOLSKY