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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

 B308823

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. ZM031154)

APPEAL from an 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 defendant and 

appellant Paul Chau committed to the State Department 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 protection challenge that he did not assert in 

the trial court. Defendant forfeited his constitutional challenge. 

We reject defendant’s contention his trial counsel was ineffective 

for failing to raise the constitutional claim below. We therefore 

affirm.

BACKGROUND

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. After 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 obtained an 

order of commitment pursuant to Welfare and Institutions 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 took 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 Developmental Center: Dr. Yung-Chung

Wong, Dr. Nandan Bhatt and Dr. Elizabeth Bruce. All three 

doctors stated their opinions, and the extensive factual bases for 

their opinions, that defendant, due to his developmental

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. 

The court sustained the petition and ordered defendant to

remain committed to the State Department of Developmental 

Services for another year, commencing October 20, 2020. The 

court scheduled a placement hearing for December 8, 2020, to 

consider placement recommendations and whether it was 

appropriate to transfer defendant from the Porterville 

Developmental Center to a less restrictive 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 Institutions 

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 original 
4

commitment order. In contrast, people with mental disorders 

who are committed under a Murphy conservatorship 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 explained 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 parties 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 finding his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

preserve the issue for review. We are not persuaded to do either.

Defendant’s equal protection argument based on alleged 

disparities in the two statutory commitment schemes would be 

better illuminated by arguments developed below based on facts 

specific to defendant’s disability and commitment history. We do 
5

not find the argument presents a purely legal issue that we can

and should resolve at this time.

Moreover, we cannot conclude, on this record, that 

defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective. We cannot make such 

findings based purely on speculation 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

current 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 Services 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.