Rowell

People v. Rowell

Good Law
133 Cal. App. 4th 447·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1606·2005 Daily Journal DAR 12245·34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 843·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9004
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 13, 2005No. C045794California1,938 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Scotland, J.

Defendant Ronald Paul Rowell appeals from the trial court’s order recommitting him as a sexually violent predator (an SVP). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.; further section references are to this code unless otherwise specified.) We shall affirm the order.

In the published portion of this opinion, we reject defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in accepting defense counsel’s representation that defendant wanted a court trial, not a jury trial. As we shall explain, the court was not required, as defendant claims, to confirm defense counsel’s representation by obtaining a personal waiver from defendant. A proceeding to commit an SVP to the Department of Mental Health for confinement is a civil proceeding with a statutory right, not constitutional right, to jury trial. Under the statutory scheme, a jury trial is waived by the failure to request one. If the accused asks for a jury trial, the request can be withdrawn by defense counsel’s representation to the court that the accused has decided to proceed instead by court trial.

In an unpublished part of this opinion, we reject defendant’s other claim of error.

FACTS *

*451 DISCUSSION

I

The Sixth Amendment…

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.