Garcia

People v. Garcia

Good Law
165 Cal. App. 4th 1120
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 25, 2008F052703California7,148 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ruben Garcia was committed for treatment as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) as amended by Proposition 83 [1] (the amended SVPA or Proposition 83). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) [2] Garcia argues (1) the amended SVPA violates several provisions of the state and federal Constitutions; (2) the order is not supported by substantial evidence; (3) Proposition 83 violates the singlesubject rule; and (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We reject each of Garcia's arguments and affirm the order of commitment.

The only issue at trial was whether there was a substantial, serious, and well-founded risk that Garcia, if released, would engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior. (Judicial Council of Cal. Crim. Jury Instns. (2006-2007) CALCRIM No. 3454.) The experts for both Garcia and the People agreed that Garcia was a pedophile, [3] and that he had committed three qualifying offenses. Garcia's experts argued, in essence, that it was unlikely he would engage in predatory conduct because of his age and poor health. The People's experts opined that Garcia, as a pedophile with a history of molesting…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.