Flores

People v. Flores

Good Law
144 Cal. App. 4th 625·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1718·2006 Daily Journal DAR 14569·50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 567·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10195
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 1, 2006F047476California2,927 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wiseman, J.

After serving prison terms and an initial commitment to Atascadero State Hospital, defendant Edward Flores was recommitted to the state hospital after a jury found that he continued to be a sexually violent predator within the meaning of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.). He claims that, in light of the fact that he voluntarily underwent chemical and surgical castration while confined, the jury’s future-dangerousness finding was not supported by substantial evidence. He also contends that the trial court erred when it modified a pattern jury instruction regarding future dangerousness. In the published part of this opinion, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient. In the unpublished part, we hold that there was no instructional error.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORIES

In 1997, defendant was committed to the state hospital as a sexually violent predator for a two-year term pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6604. The record on appeal does not indicate the factual basis for this original commitment, but the law requires a finding that the offender is a sexually violent predator, which in turn requires…

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.