85 Cal.App.5th 786
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Defendant William Joseph Cannon assaulted a 16-year-old (attempted rape) in 2010, pled to assault with intent to commit rape and related charges, and was sentenced to 7 years.
- In 2016 the prosecutor filed an SVPA petition; probable cause found; multiple updated evaluations produced split expert opinions.
- Defense counsel waived a jury trial at a 2018 pretrial conference while Cannon was absent; the bench trial occurred in October 2020.
- Three experts testified: two State Hospital psychologists (Karlsson, Miculian) opined Cannon met SVP criteria (neurocognitive disorder from TBI, continued risk, ongoing pornography use, incomplete treatment); defense neuropsychologist (Dempsey) testified Cannon had improved and no longer posed the same volitional impairment.
- Trial court found Cannon an SVP and committed him to Coalinga indefinitely (Dec. 15, 2020); Cannon appealed raising (1) insufficiency of evidence, (2) hearsay in expert testimony, and (3) equal protection for jury-advisement/personal-waiver protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that defendant is an SVP (likelihood to reoffend; necessity of custody) | State: experts’ diagnoses, actuarial scores, ongoing porn use, incomplete treatment support a serious, well-founded risk and need for custodial treatment | Cannon: prosecution failed to show current dangerousness/necessity to keep him in custody; defense expert showed substantial improvement | Affirmed. Substantial evidence supports SVP finding and custodial necessity (court defers to trier of fact and prosecution experts). |
| Admissibility of case-specific hearsay in expert testimony (Sanchez claim) | State: Dr. Karlsson properly relied on records and other evaluators as permitted by Evid. Code §§ 801–802 and SVPA evaluation rules; court limited any improper references | Cannon: Dr. Karlsson relayed Dr. Dinishak’s neuropsych testing as true, violating Sanchez | No reversible error. Trial court struck/ excluded case-specific portions; expert may base opinion on materials reasonably relied upon; presumption the court ignored inadmissible matters. |
| Equal protection — failure to advise defendant of jury right and obtain personal waiver | State: SVPA does not require personal advisement/waiver; legislature intended court trial presumption; possible justifications (risk, judge neutrality) | Cannon: similarly situated to MDO/NGI detainees who must be personally advised and waive; lack of personal advisement/waiver violates equal protection | Remand required. Court conditionally affirmed commitment but remanded to allow Cannon to litigate equal protection claim; if violation found, vacate commitment and set jury trial unless valid personal waiver after advisement. |
| Harmlessness of alleged failure to advise/obtain personal waiver | State: any procedural omission was harmless | Cannon: record silent; waiver was entered by counsel while defendant absent, so harmlessness not shown | Error (if any) not shown harmless on record; remand required for full adjudication of equal protection claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbart v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1138 (Cal. 1999) (framework and procedures for SVPA commitments)
- Ghilotti v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 2002) (defines "likely" as a "serious and well‑founded risk" of sexual reoffense)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.4th 757 (Cal. 2003) (discusses control-of-behavior requirement under SVPA)
- Sanchez v. People, 63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016) (case‑specific out‑of‑court statements relied on by experts are hearsay and inadmissible to prove truth)
- Leon v. People, 61 Cal.4th 569 (Cal. 2015) (expert may state independently formed opinions even if based on inadmissible hearsay)
- Barrett v. State of California, 54 Cal.4th 1081 (Cal. 2012) (rational-basis review upheld for procedural differences among civil commitment statutes)
- McKee v. People, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2009) (equal protection scrutiny in civil commitment context; courts remand to allow factual development)
- Blackburn v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.4th 1113 (Cal. 2015) (proper jury‑waiver advisement affects harmless‑error analysis; waiver must be knowing and voluntary)
- Magana v. Superior Court, 76 Cal.App.5th 310 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (remand where record silent on jury‑advisement/personal waiver equal protection claim)
- Nolasco v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.App.5th 209 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (applies rational basis to civil commitment procedural differences and permits remand for evidentiary development)