Filed 5/22/23 P. v. Redding CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BILLY RAY REDDING,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B323749

(Super. Ct. No. 2013024657)

(Ventura County)

Billy Ray Redding appeals from an order denying his 

petition for conditional release from the state hospital (Welf. & 

Inst. Code,1 § 6608) after being committed as a sexually violent 

predator (SVP). He contends there was insufficient evidence to 

support the trial court’s denial of conditional release. We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 1973, Redding was convicted of forcible rape. He was 

initially committed to a state hospital as a mentally disordered 

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the 

Welfare and Institutions Code. 
2

sex offender but was transferred to state prison. He was released 

on parole in 1977. 

Sixteen months later, Redding raped another woman in her 

home, and a jury convicted him of forcible rape and forcible rape 

in concert. He was sentenced to 10 years in state prison. He was 

released on parole in 1985. 

In 1992, Redding was convicted of two counts of assault to 

commit rape against two women. He was sentenced to 26 years 

in prison. 

In 2011, the Ventura County Superior Court ordered 

Redding committed to Coalinga State Hospital (CSH) as an SVP 

for an indeterminate term (§ 6600 et seq.). 

Petition for conditional release

In September 2020, Redding petitioned for conditional 

release or unconditional discharge pursuant to sections 6605 and 

6608. In July 2022, the trial court held a hearing on the petition.

1. Treatment progress reports

The parties submitted four reports regarding Redding’s 

progress in the state hospital. In December 2019, the medical 

director of CSH filed an annual report prepared by Dr. Larry 

Wornian. Dr. Wornian declared that Redding had not completed 

the Department of State Hospitals Sex Offender Treatment 

Program and was not a suitable candidate for conditional or 

unconditional release. 

Dr. Wornian acknowledged Redding was “actively involved” 

in the sex offender treatment program. However, there were 

“ongoing difficulties . . . encountered with respect to [his] 

self[-]perceived skills and capacities,” which led to some issues 

with hospital staff. 

Dr. Wornian stated that Redding was diagnosed with an 

“other specified paraphilic disorder” and a narcissistic personality 
3

disorder, which was a personality feature that “makes it easier 

for [Redding] to act out his paraphilic urges through a sense of 

entitlement, a lack of empathy for others[,] and cognitive 

distortions about his victims.” Redding consistently believed he 

was misdiagnosed with a narcissistic personality disorder and 

denied that he suffered from a qualifying mental disorder. Dr. 

Wornian concluded the cumulative effect of Redding’s mental 

disorders “severely impairs both his volitional and emotional 

capacities[,] and predisposes him to the commission of future 

sexual crimes.”

Because of Redding’s “history of deviant sexual interest and 

behaviors” and because “to date [he] has not consistently 

participated in nor completed sex offender treatment,” Dr. 

Wornian concluded Redding was “not suitable for conditional 

release.” Dr. Wornian opined that “conditions cannot be imposed 

that adequately protect the community if he were to gain 

conditional release.” He concluded Redding still qualified as an 

SVP and that Redding remained a danger to the health and 

safety of others. 

In January 2021, Liberty Healthcare of California, Inc.

(Liberty), Conditional Release Program (CONREP) filed a report,

which concluded that Redding was suitable for conditional 

release and “can be safely and adequately managed and treated 

in the community.” Redding was enrolled in the sex offender 

treatment program and his attendance was “good” and his 

participation was “acceptable.” But “ ‘despite his progress, there 

have been concerns historically regarding his transparency and 

level of internalization particularly related to acceptance of 

feedback.’ ” “Genuine acceptance of feedback seems to be 

‘difficult’ for him.” 
4

The report noted that Redding continued to question his 

narcissistic personality disorder diagnosis and requested 

psychological testing to determine if the diagnosis was accurate. 

The report also detailed several behavioral incidents occurring 

from March 2019 to March 2020, which included incidents of

Redding possessing contraband such as a flash drive, attempting 

to create “ ‘State Documents,’ ” hiding personal documents, and 

copying official hospital letterhead onto blank documents. 

The report also summarized findings from a treatment 

progress review panel held in September 2020. In evaluating his 

potential to reoffend, one doctor noted that Redding had “anger 

and aggression in the past” and that “ ‘he shows you what he 

wants you to see.’ ” Still, Redding was “unanimously advanced to 

Module IV, implying readiness for [c]onditional release.” The 

panel concluded that Redding was ready for outpatient 

treatment. 

In December 2020, CSH’s medical director filed an annual 

report prepared by Dr. Michelle Vorwerk. Dr. Vorwerk declared 

that in November 2020, Redding completed the sex offender 

treatment program and had “sufficient treatment for his 

diagnosed mental condition and other dynamic risk factors.” She 

declared conditional release was appropriate for Redding. 

Dr. Vorwerk diagnosed Redding with other specified 

paraphilic disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. The 

combined diagnosis resulted in “emotional and volitional

impairments, predisposing him to the commission of sexually 

violent criminal acts.” In assessing risk, Dr. Vorwerk concluded

that Redding “represent[ed] a serious and well-founded risk of 

engaging in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior in the 

future.” 
5

Dr. Vorwerk opined that Redding met the definition of an 

SVP and unconditional release was not appropriate. And while 

Redding had made significant progress in his treatment, Dr. 

Vorwerk was concerned that he had a “difficult time accepting no 

for an answer and at times has been resistant when concerns 

about his treatment progress have been brought up.” She 

assessed that Redding was “ ‘likely’ ” to reoffend if 

unconditionally released because of his mental disorder and 

presented a substantial danger and well-founded risk of 

committing future predatory acts. 

Nevertheless, Dr. Vorwerk opined that Redding was ready 

for conditional release. She believed that he was “similar to 

patients who have historically succeeded in CONREP.” She 

opined that conditions could be imposed to adequately protect the 

community if Redding was conditionally released. 

In November 2021, CSH’s medical director filed another 

annual report prepared by Dr. Vorwerk. Dr. Vorwerk declared 

that conditional release for Redding was appropriate. Dr. 

Vorwerk again diagnosed Redding with other specified paraphilic 

disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. In assessing 

Redding’s risk of reoffending, Dr. Vorwerk concluded that he 

“represent[ed] a serious and well-founded risk of engaging in 

sexually violent predatory criminal behavior in the future.”

Dr. Vorwerk opined that unconditional release was 

inappropriate. Redding is “ ‘likely’ to engage in predatory 

sexually violent criminal behavior as a result of his diagnosed 

mental disorder” and “currently presents as a substantial danger, 

or serious and well-founded risk, of committing future sexually 

violent predatory acts.” Redding met the legal definition of an 

SVP. 
6

But as to conditional release, Dr. Vorwerk opined it was in 

Redding’s best interest to be conditionally released. Due to his 

progress in the sex offender treatment program, Dr. Vorwerk 

believed Redding was sufficiently prepared to transition to a less 

restrictive environment and that “conditions can be imposed that 

adequately protect the community if he were to be conditionally 

released.”

2. Prosecution evidence

Suzanne Weilepp testified at Redding’s hearing. She met 

Redding around 2001 when she taught at Solano State Prison 

and he was an inmate working as her clerk. They got along and 

developed a “rapport, kind of a camaraderie.” Weilepp 

maintained contact with Redding, and they talked “sometimes 

every day.” She denied they developed a romantic relationship. 

She stopped talking to him around May 2022, after the district 

attorney contacted her about the instant petition. 

Weilepp learned that Redding told CSH staff members and 

evaluators that she was his girlfriend. He told others they met 

when she was a volunteer at a women’s shelter. She was “a rape 

victim who was helping other rape victims[,] [a]nd he wrote to 

where [she] worked, and [she] wrote him back. And things kind 

of blossomed.” Redding told her his story because he wanted her 

to have the same story. Weilepp denied this story and denied 

working at a women’s shelter. Redding told Weilepp that he told 

this false story during a lie detector test and that he “passed the 

polygraph with it.” He also told her about upcoming polygraph 

tests at CSH and said he would “condition himself” so that he 

could pass them. 

Weilepp said that in the 20 years she has known Redding, 

he had consistently described women based on attractiveness and 

“[n]ever about our accomplishments or personality. . . . Basically, 
7

it’s our bra size. It’s our youth.” He told her about some female 

staff members at CSH and described them by their “physical 

terms.” 

Weilepp testified that Redding was “very dismissive” about 

his rape victims. She asked him “point-blank, do you ever reflect 

on maybe you made one pregnant or something? And he said, no, 

I never think about it.” Weilepp also said that sometimes 

Redding will “have a flash of insight that maybe [he] did 

something wrong” but “he doesn’t examine it any further than 

that.” 

Weilepp testified because she believed Redding was “still a 

danger.” Based on conversations and interactions with him over

two decades and “seeing that his attitude has been pretty stable 

as far as objectifying women,” she did not see empathy or growth 

in Redding. 

3. Defense evidence

Dr. Vorwerk testified she interviewed and evaluated 

Redding in 2020 and 2021 for his annual evaluations and 

prepared corresponding annual reports. She assessed Redding’s 

risk of reoffending, interviewed his treatment team, reviewed his 

medical records and past evaluations, reviewed his sex offense 

history, and analyzed his treatment progress. She testified that 

Redding received few interdisciplinary notes, no serious incident 

reports since his admission to CSH, and no behavioral incidents 

in the preceding year. And because he was now in Module 4 of 

the program, Redding was ready for community reintegration 

with the support of conditional release services.

Dr. Vorwerk also testified that Liberty is a contracted 

agency that works with the Department of State Hospitals, and 

they closely supervise clients on conditional release. Redding had 
8

reviewed Liberty’s “very strict adherence to their terms and 

conditions with the patients in their program.” 

Dr. Vorwerk testified that Redding was diagnosed with a 

narcissistic personality disorder. He acknowledged being a very 

manipulative person and “a great con artist” in his earlier years. 

Dr. Vorwerk explained: “In Mr. Redding’s case, he was very 

manipulative and exploited others for a very long period of time.” 

While Redding still manifests narcissistic behaviors, they have 

mitigated over time. 

Ultimately, Dr. Vorwerk testified Redding still met the 

criteria of an SVP and would likely reoffend if unconditionally 

released. However, she opined that Redding was now suitable for 

conditional release and would not be likely to reoffend if released 

on a supervised program. He was safe for conditional release 

because the conditional release program had structure and 

provided monitoring, treatment, and polygraph tests. Weilepp’s 

testimony did not change her opinion. 

4. Trial court’s ruling

The court denied the petition, finding the district attorney 

had “met their burden and shown that Mr. Redding would be a 

danger to the health and safety of others and that it [wa]s likely 

that he will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior due to 

his diagnosed mental health disorder even if under supervision 

and treatment in the community.” 

The court explained it found “several consistent themes” in 

the reports and testimony, including that “he is a serial rapist, a 

serial thief, he is manipulable [sic], and he lacks an[y] empathy 

and remorse.” The court noted that “Dr. Vorwerk is still at the 

point where she can say . . . : ‘It’s my professional opinion that . . . 

he is likely to engage in predatory sexually violent criminal 

behavior as a result of his diagnosed mental disorder. Mr. 
9

Redding currently presents as a substantial danger or a serious 

and well-founded risk of committing future sexually violent 

predatory acts as defined by Welfare & Institutions Code Section 

6600.” 

The court stated it was “clear” that Redding “is as serious 

of a sexually violent predator as you will ever find,” noting that 

he “raped multiple victims over a period of many years,” “raped 

victims while armed with weapons,” and raped a victim in front 

of a child. The court found that Dr. Vorwerk “laid out a 

compelling case why Mr. Redding [was] a continuing threat.” 

“Based on his mental illness, his history of sexually violent 

predation, and his progress or lack thereof while in confinement,”

Redding continued to be a “grave threat.” 

In considering whether Redding could be conditionally 

released, the court found that he could not. It reasoned:

“Listening to the testimony and reading the reports, it seems 

very obvious to me that the medical professionals hope that Mr. 

Redding could safely be released, but it’s not anything more than 

just hope.” 

The court also noted Dr. Vorwerk “acknowledged that 

[Redding] is manipulative, deceptive at times, and exploitative. 

She accepts that now . . . as being okay, as being some reflection 

of his mental health condition or of something else, but I can’t 

accept that. Maybe that’s okay for the Department of State 

Hospitals, but it’s not okay for the Court.” The court said that

“[i]t convinces me to question everything here. In that analysis, 

it does not benefit Mr. Redding.” 

DISCUSSION

A person committed as an SVP “shall have a current 

examination of [their] mental condition made at least once every

year.” (§ 6604.9, subd. (a).) The annual report “shall include 
10

consideration of whether the committed person currently meets 

the definition of a sexually violent predator and whether 

conditional release to a less restrictive alternative, pursuant to 

Section 6608, . . . is in the best interest of the person and 

conditions can be imposed that would adequately protect the 

community.” (Id., subd. (b).) The SVP may petition the court for 

conditional release with or without the recommendation of the 

Director of State Hospitals. (§§ 6604.9, subd. (d), 6608, subd. (a).) 

If the trial court deems the petition for conditional release

not frivolous and gives proper notice, it “shall hold a hearing to 

determine whether the person committed would be a danger to 

the health and safety of others in that it is likely that the person 

will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior due to the 

person’s diagnosed mental disorder if under supervision and 

treatment in the community.” (§ 6608, subd. (g).) If the annual 

report (§ 6604.9) concludes that conditional release to a less 

restrictive alternative is in the best interest of the person and 

that conditions can be imposed that would adequately protect the 

community, “the burden of proof shall be on the state to show, by 

a preponderance of the evidence, that conditional release is not 

appropriate.” (§ 6608, subd. (k).) 

We review a trial court’s ruling on a section 6608 

conditional release petition for substantial evidence. (People v. 

Rasmuson (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1504 (Rasmuson).) “ ‘In 

assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the entire 

record in the light most favorable to the judgment . . . 

[Citations.]’ [Citation.] We resolve all conflicts in the evidence 

and questions of credibility in favor of the verdict, and indulge 

every reasonable inference [the trier of fact] could draw from the 

evidence. [Citation.] The testimony of one witness, if believed, 

may be sufficient to prove any fact. (Evid. Code, § 411.)” (Id. at 
11

pp. 1507-1508.) In reviewing the trial court’s ruling, it is not our 

role to reweigh evidence. We do not resolve credibility issues nor 

evidentiary conflicts, as those tasks are the “exclusive province of 

the trier of fact.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181

(Young).)

Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that 

Redding was not suitable for conditional release. Redding had a 

history of sexually violent crimes and reoffending when released 

in the community. All annual reports consistently state that 

Redding still met the definition of an SVP, he continued to suffer 

from a paraphilic disorder and a narcissistic personality disorder, 

and his disorders predisposed him to committing sexually violent 

acts. Moreover, the 2019 annual report stated that Redding was 

not suitable for conditional release, and the 2020 and 2021 

reports concluded that Redding was likely to “engage in 

predatory sexually violent criminal behavior” and presents a 

“well-founded risk[] of committing future sexually violent 

predatory acts” if unconditionally released. And although the 

2020 and 2021 annual reports concluded that Redding was 

suitable for conditional release and that conditions could be 

imposed to adequately protect the community, the trial court was 

permitted to reject this conclusion. (See Rasmuson, supra, 145

Cal.App.4th at p. 1509.) 

As the trial court emphasized, there was evidence that 

Redding was manipulative, deceptive, and exploitative. Some of 

the reports, including the 2019 annual report and the 2020 

Liberty CONREP report, noted that Redding had difficulty with 

transparency and genuinely accepting feedback, that “ ‘he shows 

you what he wants you to see,’ ” and that he disagreed with his 

narcissistic personality disorder diagnosis. The reports also 

included behavioral incidents such as attempting to hide personal 
12

documents and fabricating official hospital documents. Dr. 

Vorwerk also testified that Redding still exhibited narcissistic 

behaviors. Additionally, Weilepp testified that Redding was “still 

a danger” and that she did not see empathy or growth in him over 

the span of twenty years. Weilepp also testified that Redding lied 

about his relationship with her to CSH staff and evaluators, 

admitted to lying on a polygraph test, and said that he could 

“condition himself” so that he can pass them. Furthermore, 

Weilepp testified that Redding remained “very dismissive” about 

his past victims, continued to objectify women, and lacked 

remorse or insight. Given this evidence of Redding’s deception,

the trial court could have reasonably weighed such evidence 

against the evidence supporting his conditional release. 

Redding compares this case to Rasmuson, supra, 145 

Cal.App.4th 1487, where the Court of Appeal reversed the denial 

of conditional release. There, the appellant presented the 

testimony of eight mental health professionals who “uniformly 

agreed that appellant would not be a significant danger to the 

community if conditionally released” and did not present a 

“ ‘serious and well-founded risk’ of reoffending.” (Id. at p. 1508.) 

In contrast, the “People failed to present a scintilla of evidence 

that appellant would likely reoffend.” (Ibid.) While “the trial 

court was not required to follow the essentially unanimous and 

uncontradicted recommendations of appellant’s eight expert 

witnesses [citation], it could not arbitrarily disregard those 

recommendations.” (Id. at p. 1509.) The trial court “made no 

findings of fact or gave any indication as to why it chose not to 

accept the opinion of any of appellant’s experts.” (Ibid.)

Rasmuson is distinguishable. Here, the trial court did not 

arbitrarily disregard the expert recommendations of conditional 

release. Instead, in considering and weighing the testimony and 
13

reports, the court found “that the medical professionals hope that 

Mr. Redding could safely be released, but it’s not anything more 

than just hope.” The court also noted that Dr. Vorwerk 

“accept[ed]” Redding’s manipulative, deceptive, and exploitative 

behaviors as “being okay,” but the court “c[ould not] accept that” 

conclusion. It explained that such evidence of Redding’s 

manipulation, deception, and exploitation “convince[d] [it] to 

question” the expert recommendations. We defer to the trial 

court’s credibility determinations and findings of fact so long as 

they are supported by substantial evidence. (Young, supra, 34 

Cal.4th at 1181.) Substantial evidence supports a finding that 

Redding presented a risk of reoffending if conditionally released. 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. 

BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.
David M. Hirsch, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Gerald J. Miller, 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, Noah P. Hill and Eric J. Kohm, Deputy 

Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.