Poulsom

People v. Poulsom

Good Law
152 Cal. Rptr. 3d 563·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 77·213 Cal. App. 4th 501
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 31, 2013No. D060779California10,440 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Huffman, J.

*507 Opinion

In 2007, a jury found that Michael Poulsom did not qualify as a sexually violent predator (SVP) within the meaning of the Sexually Violent Predators Act (the Act or SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 1 §6600 et seq.) After two subsequent parole violations, the San Diego County District Attorney filed a petition alleging that Poulsom was an SVP under the Act. The jury found the petition’s allegations true and the trial court ordered Poulsom committed to Coalinga State Hospital for an indefinite term. Poulsom timely appealed the order.

Poulsom raises multiple issues on appeal. He contends that substantial evidence does not support the court’s determination that probable cause existed for this matter to proceed to trial. In addition, he argues that substantial evidence does not support either of the jury’s findings of (1) a changed material circumstance after the jury found him not to qualify as an SVP in 2007 or (2) Poulsom’s current difficulty controlling his criminal sexual behavior. Poulsom also argues his due process rights were violated because the court limited his number of peremptory challenges to six. He next asserts that his commitment to an indeterminate term…

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.