Filed 8/28/15 P. v. S osa CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ED DIE LEON SOSA,

Defendant and Appellant. B259481

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. ZM019903)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Norm an

J. Shapiro, Judge. Affirmed.

Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant, Eddie Leon Sosa.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Johnsen, and Wyatt

E. Bloomf

ield , Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________________2

Eddie Leon Sosa appeals from an order following a jury trial finding him to be a

sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (Welfa re &

Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. ) (SVPA) and committing him to the Department of

Mental Health (DMH) for an indeterminate term. We affirm. We hold that under Moore

v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 802 ( Moore ) , there is no due process right to be

restored to trial competency for purposes of SVP proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

In 1996, Sosa was convicted of one count of forcible rape with the use of a deadly

weapon, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. In 2012, prior to Sosa’s release

from prison, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a petition for Sosa to be

committed as an SVP. A jury determined that Sosa was indeed an SVP, and the court

committed him to the Department of Mental Health for an indeterminate term.

On several occasions throughout the proceedings, Sosa’s attorney requested that

the proceedings be stayed so that the court could hold a mental competence hearing and

determine whether Sosa was competent to stand trial an d able to assist counsel in

his defen se

. The court denied these requests on the grounds that a defendant need not

be competent to stand trial for purposes of a hearing under the SVPA . ( Moore

, supra

,

50 Cal.4th at p. 829 .)

DISCUSSION

Sosa contends, in the only issue he raises on appeal, that he was denied due

process because the trial court denied his counsel’s requests for a hearing to determine his

competency to stand trial. Moore holds that a defendant need not be competent to stan d

trial for a proceeding under the SVPA. ( Moore v. Superior Court

, supra , 50 Cal.4th

at p. 829 .) As Sosa acknowledges, Moore is a decision of the California Supreme Court,

a court of superior jurisdiction , and we are required to follow it under principle s of

stare decisis . (

Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 454

- 455 .)

For this reason, the order of the trial court is affirmed.3 DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

We concur:

CHANEY, J.

MOOR, J. 

 Judge of the Los Angeles Superio r Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.