Court Opinion

ID: 9942738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 20:04:17.117715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:23.717044
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/21/24 P. v. Davis 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                2d Crim. No. B330377
                                                         (Super. Ct. No. 2003000197)
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                               (Ventura County)

 v.

 RANDY SCOTT DAVIS,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      Randy Scott Davis appeals from the trial court’s order
committing him to the State Department of State Hospitals as a
sexually violent predator (SVP) within the meaning of the
Sexually Violent Predators Act. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et
seq.) We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal.
After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief
raising no arguable issues and requested that we follow the
procedures set forth in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40
Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.) and People v. Kisling (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th
288 (Kisling). Appellant was informed by appellate counsel and
by this court of his right to file a supplemental brief containing
any issues he wishes this court to consider.
       Appellant filed two supplemental briefs raising no issues of
merit. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
                  Facts and Procedural Background
       In 1984, appellant kidnapped an eight-year-old girl, took
her to his apartment, and sexually molested her. He was
convicted by plea of no contest to kidnapping and lewd and
lascivious conduct on a child under the age of 14. (Pen. Code, §§
207, subd. (b), 288, subd. (b).) Appellant was sentenced to 11
years in state prison.
       In 2003, appellant was convicted by plea of no contest to
attempted kidnapping for the purpose of committing child
molestation. (Pen. Code, §§ 664/207, subd. (b).) He admitted
having three prior serious felony convictions. (Pen. Code, § 667,
subd. (a).) Appellant was sentenced to 20 years in state prison.
       In 2022, prior to appellant’s release from prison, the People
filed a petition to commit him to the State Department of State
Hospitals as an SVP. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, et seq.) The
trial court conducted a hearing and found probable cause to grant
the petition.
       Appellant waived jury. The trial court conducted a hearing
on the petition. The evidence included: (1) evaluation reports
prepared by two psychologists who opined that appellant met the
statutory criteria for commitment, (2) appellant’s 1984 crimes,
which qualified as sexually violent offenses (Welf. & Inst. Code, §
6600, subd. (b)), and (3) various other documents and stipulations
regarding appellant’s criminal history.

                                 2
        After considering the evidence, the trial court found the
allegations in the petition true beyond a reasonable doubt and
ordered appellant civilly committed to the Department of State
Hospitals for an indeterminate term.
                              Discussion
        Because the instant appeal is from an SVP commitment
proceeding rather than a first appeal as of right from a criminal
conviction, appellant is not entitled to our independent review of
the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
(See Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 537-539; Kisling, supra, 239
Cal.App.4th at pp. 290-292.) He is, however, entitled to appellate
consideration of any contentions raised in his supplemental brief.
(See People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232.)
        In his supplemental briefs, appellant contends he received
ineffective assistance of counsel because he was not advised that
he would be classified as an SVP and defense counsel failed to
move for “several years of continuances” so appellant could
“complete[] the program” at Coalinga State Hospital, and “win a
trial.”
        To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a
defendant must demonstrate that counsel’s representation fell
below an objective standard of reasonableness and, but for
counsel’s errors, there is a reasonable probability that the result
of the proceeding would have been different. (Strickland v.
Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-694.)
        Neither appellant’s supplemental briefs nor the record
demonstrates that defense counsel’s performance was deficient or
that a more favorable disposition was reasonably probable.

                                  3
                          Disposition
     The appeal is dismissed.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                  YEGAN, J.
We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             BALTODANO, J.

                              4
                      Kristi Peariso, Judge
                Superior Court County of Ventura
                 ______________________________
     Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

     No appearance by Respondent.