Court Opinion

ID: 9396479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 18:04:01.010967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:17.362949
License: Public Domain

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     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                  2d Crim. No. B323749
                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 2013024657)
     Plaintiff and Respondent,                                 (Ventura County)

v.

BILLY RAY REDDING,

     Defendant and Appellant.

       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

       Further unspecified statutory references are to the
         1

Welfare and Institutions Code.
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

                                 2
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.”

                                 3
      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.”

                                4
       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.

                                5
       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,

                                 6
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

                                7
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.

                                   8
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

                                 9
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.4 th 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

                                 10
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

                                11
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

                                12
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.

                                13
                    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.