People v. Wilkins CA3, C094779

Wilkins pleaded guilty in 2004 to a qualifying sexual offense; a sexually violent predator (SVP) commitment petition was filed in 2009.
In June 2021 a remote status conference addressed whether Wilkins would demand a jury trial (which required transport to Sacramento and 14-day jail quarantine) or waive the jury and appear remotely for a bench trial.
Wilkins, after consulting with counsel in a virtual breakout room and discussing quarantine/transport concerns, expressly waived his right to a jury trial to avoid transport and to appear remotely.
A bench trial was held June 15, 2021; two experts testified Wilkins met SVP criteria, Wilkins testified, and the court ordered commitment as an SVP.
On appeal Wilkins argued he was entitled to the same jury-waiver advisements afforded criminal defendants (and those in related civil-commitment/quasi-criminal proceedings) and that the court’s advisements were inadequate, requiring reversal or remand for an equal protection hearing.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding the waiver was knowing and intelligent under the Sivongxxay totality-of-the-circumstances standard and therefore Wilkins showed no prejudice even if heightened advisements were required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Wilkins)	Held
Whether an alleged SVP is entitled under due process/equal protection to the same jury-waiver advisements given criminal defendants (and some civil/quasi-criminal defendants).	No relief needed; court provided adequate procedure and advisements under applicable standards.	Wilkins: SVP detainees should receive the same detailed advisements as criminal defendants and certain civil-commitment defendants.	Court did not decide entitlement question; resolved case on adequacy of advisements instead.
Whether Wilkins’ jury-waiver was knowing and intelligent and whether inadequate advisements required reversal/remand.	Waiver was valid under the totality of the circumstances (court and counsel explained differences; quarantine/transport concerns were central; prior experience).	Waiver defective: record lacks explicit advisements about jury composition, unanimity, participation in jury selection, and that a judge would decide if waived.	Waiver was knowing and intelligent under totality of circumstances; judgment affirmed.

People v. Sivongxxay, 3 Cal.5th 151 (Supreme Court guidance on recommended jury-waiver colloquy and totality-of-the-circumstances review)
People v. Collins, 26 Cal.4th 297 (endorses totality-of-the-circumstances standard for assessing jury-waiver validity)
People v. Washington, 72 Cal.App.5th 453 (discusses SVP statute’s jury-trial entitlement provisions)
People v. Cortez, 6 Cal.App.4th 1202 (standing/aggrievement principle for raising constitutional challenges)