People v. Sobonya CA6
H047112
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 25, 2021Background
- Appellant Jack Steven Sobonya had prior sexual convictions (1995 convictions for lewd acts on a child and kidnapping) and was serving a 2012 Santa Cruz County sentence when the State sought SVP commitment.
- A petition for commitment was filed in Ventura County on March 16, 2015 and later transferred to Santa Cruz County (Santa Cruz filed its own petition May 7, 2015).
- Sobonya demurred, arguing the Santa Cruz petition was untimely because he was not in lawful custody when it was filed; the trial court denied the demurrer, finding either the Ventura filing was timely or the transfer/filing resulted from a good‑faith mistake under Welf. & Inst. Code §6601(a)(2).
- At trial the prosecution’s experts diagnosed pedophilic disorder and antisocial personality disorder (one witness said she would “seriously consider” sexual sadism); defense expert disputed current pedophilia/ASPD and emphasized protective factors (age, health, treatment).
- A jury found Sobonya to be a sexually violent predator and he was committed indeterminately to the Department of State Hospitals.
- On appeal Sobonya challenged (1) the timeliness/custody of the petition, (2) ineffective assistance for failing to object to testimony about sexual sadism, and (3) the constitutionality of indeterminate SVP commitment (due process, ex post facto, double jeopardy). The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Sobonya) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Timeliness / lawfulness of custody for SVP petition | Ventura petition was filed while defendant was in custody and later transferred; alternatively, any untimeliness arose from a good‑faith mistake under §6601(a)(2) | Santa Cruz petition was untimely because defendant was no longer in lawful custody when Santa Cruz filed; transfer does not cure defect | Affirmed: Santa Cruz was correct venue; substantial evidence supports trial court’s finding that initial Ventura filing/transfer was a good‑faith mistake, so petition not dismissed |
| 2. Ineffective assistance for failure to timely object to expert testimony about sexual sadism | No deficiency: prosecutor did not know expert would mention sadism; counsel cross‑examined effectively; any late remark not prejudicial | Counsel should have objected preemptively under disclosure rules (Pen. Code §1054.1/Civil Discovery) to ambush testimony; failure was deficient and prejudicial | Affirmed: No deficient performance shown and no prejudice—expert repeatedly disavowed a formal sadism diagnosis; cross‑examination exposed weaknesses; testimony was cumulative |
| 3. Applicability of disclosure rules to expert opinion on new paraphilia | SVP proceedings are civil; discovery rules apply but court management controls | Failure to disclose new diagnostic opinion deprived defense of fair notice | Held against defendant: even if disclosure statute applied, prosecutor lacked notice and record shows no trial‑court error that produced prejudice |
| 4. Constitutionality of indeterminate SVP commitment (due process, ex post facto, double jeopardy) | SVPA as amended is civil, nonpunitive, provides release mechanisms; California Supreme Court precedent upholds constitutionality | Amended SVPA imposes punitive indeterminate confinement violating due process, ex post facto, and double jeopardy | Affirmed: Court follows McKee I and Hubbart—SVPA is civil, nonpunitive; no due process/ex post facto/double jeopardy violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Langhorne v. Superior Court, 179 Cal.App.4th 225 (Cal. Ct. App.) (good‑faith mistake inquiry under §6601 reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Sokolich v. Superior Court, 248 Cal.App.4th 434 (Cal. Ct. App.) (legislative history and precedent support that negligent mistakes can still be "good faith" under §6601(a)(2))
- In re Smith, 42 Cal.4th 1251 (Cal. 2008) (legislative history on §6601(a)(2) and relation to Whitley)
- People v. McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2010) (McKee I) (upholding amended SVPA against due process, ex post facto, and related challenges)
- Hubbart v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1138 (Cal. 1998) (SVPA is civil, nonpunitive; treatment and public protection objectives)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Cheek v. Superior Court, 103 Cal.App.4th 520 (Cal. Ct. App.) (venue rules for SVP petitions)