Filed 7/26/21 P. v. Chau CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE

,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PAUL CHAU

,
Defendant and Appellant. B 30 8823

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. ZM031154 )

APPEAL from a n order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert S. Harrison , Judge. Affirmed

. Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant

. Rob Bonta , Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey , Assistant Attorney General, Michael C. Keller and Charles S. Lee , Deputy Attorneys General

, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * * * * * *2 On October 20, 2020, the trial court , after a bench trial,
sustained the People’s petition pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 6500 and ordered d efendant and appellant Paul Chau committed to the State Departm ent of Developmental Services for a one

- year term. Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial or claim that any errors occurred during trial. Defendant raises only one issue on appeal, a constitutional equal protec tion challenge that he did not assert in
the trial cour t. Defendant forfeit ed his constitutional challenge.
We reject defendant’s contention his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the constitutional claim below. We therefore
affirm

. B ACK GROUND
In August 2020, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code
section 6500 seeking a recommitment of defendant to the State Department of Developmental Services for another year on the grounds his developmental disability continued to cause him to be a danger to himself and others and that judicial commitment remained the only suitable option.
Defendant has been committed to the State Department of Developmental Services for several years. Af ter felony charges were filed against defendant in 2013, he was found incompetent to stand trial. Charges were eventually dismissed when it was determined he was unlikely to attain competency due to his developmental disability. The People sought and obt ained an order of commitment pursuant to Welfare and Insti tutions Code section 6500 and have sought annual recommitment orders since
then.3 Defendant , represented by appointed counsel, entered a
denial to the August 2020 petition and waived his right to a jury
trial. The bench trial on the People’s petition t ook place on October 20, 2020. The People presented the testimony of three
doctors

, all of whom had been or were involved in defendant’s

care at the Porterville Development al Center : Dr. Yung

- Chung Wong, Dr. Nanda n Bhatt and Dr. Elizabeth Bruce. All three doctors stated their opinion s, and the extensive factual bases for their opinions, that defendant, due to his d evelopmental disability and mental health issues, remained a danger to himself
and/or to others. Defendant did not present any witnesses

. Defendant argued at length that the People had failed to meet their burden.
T he court sustained the petition and ordered defendant to remain committed to the State Department of Developmental
Service s for another year , commencing October 20, 202 0 . The court scheduled a placement hearing for December 8, 2020

, to consider placement recommendations and whether it was appropriate to transfer defendant fr om the Porterville Development al Center to a less r estrictive community

- based placement. Defendant appealed. We granted defendant’s motion for calendar preference.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends he was denied equal protection
because his one

- year commitment under Welfare and Inst itutions
Code section 6500 expires on the anniversary date of the recommitment order, which was made after a hearing held more
than one year after the anniversary date of the original4

commitment order . In contrast, people with mental disorders
who are committed under a Murphy c onservatorship pursuant to
the Lanterman

- Petris

- Short Act (§ 5008 et seq.) may be recommitted for only one year from the original commitment anniversary.
Defendant admits this constitutional claim was not raised
below. As our Supreme Court has expla ined on numerous occasions, “ ‘ “ ‘ a constitutional right, ’ or a right of any other sort,

‘ may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it. ’ ” ’ [Citation.] ‘ Ordinarily, a criminal defendant who does not challenge an assertedly erroneous ruling of the trial court in that court has forfeited his or her right to raise the claim on appeal. ’ [Citation.] ‘ “ The purpose of this rule is to encourage p arties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected. [Citation.]” ’ [Citation.] Additionally, ‘ [i]t is both unfair and inefficient to permit a claim of error on appeal that, if timely brought to the attention of the trial court, could have been easily corrected or avoided. ’ ” ( People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593.)
Defendant argues we should nonetheless consider the issue
because it is a purely legal issue

, or we should resolve the merits
after find ing h is trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

preserve the issue for review . We are not persuaded to do either.
D efendant’s equal protection argument based on alleged disparities in the two statutory commitment schemes would be better illuminated by arg uments develop ed below based on facts specific to defendant’s disability and commitment history. We do5

not find the argument presents a purely legal issue that we can and should resolve at this time. Moreover, w e cannot conclude, on this record, that
def endant’s trial counsel was ineffective. We cannot make such findings based purely on speculat ion about counsel’s trial strategy. In the event another petition is filed by the People to recommit defendant for another year after the completion of the

curre nt term, defendant is free to raise and develop his equal protection argument in the trial court at that time

. DISPOSITION
The October 20, 2020 order sustaining the petition and ordering defendant’s commitment to the State Department of Developmental Se rvices is affirmed.

GRIMES, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

WILEY, J.

OHTA, J. *

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.