People v. Williams

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

D079156

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

May 10, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FSBSS702835, Lorenzo R. Balderrama, Judge. Requests for judicial notice denied. Order affirmed.

Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kathryn Kirschbaum and Collette C Cavalier, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

DATO J.

Robert Williams appeals from an order extending his commitment as a sexually violent predator (SVP). In an argument even his appellate lawyer calls "a technicality," he contends the prosecutor forgot to offer into evidence exhibits establishing that he committed prior "qualifying offenses"-that is, rape convictions and the circumstances surrounding those crimes. As we explain this argument fails because the clerk's transcript shows the exhibits were received in evidence and nothing in the reporter's transcript indicates otherwise.

Williams also maintains that the order should be reversed because the court received testimonial hearsay evidence violating his right to confront witnesses. He acknowledges that the Sixth Amendment, which applies only to criminal proceedings, does not directly apply to his civil commitment matter. But he points to Penal Code section 1026.5, subdivision (b)(7), which provides that in civil commitment trials involving persons found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI), the defendant "shall be entitled to the rights guaranteed under the federal and State Constitutions for criminal proceedings." Williams contends that SVP's are similarly situated to NGI's in this respect and therefore, under equal protection principles he is entitled to the same statutory rights.

We are guided by a policy of judicial restraint under which we do not reach constitutional questions unless" 'absolutely required to do so to dispose of the matter before us.'" (Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1245, 1275, fn. 31.) Accordingly we reject Williams's equal protection argument because even if his constitutional argument is correct, any error was harmless. The psychologists who testified evaluated Williams themselves in face-to-face interviews. Without relying on hearsay reports, they determined he suffers from a "severe mental disorder" that causes him to be sexually attracted to and aroused by raping women. Thus, even assuming (without deciding) that NGI's have confrontation-clause rights under Penal Code section 1026.5, subdivision (b)(7), and that the equal protection clause compels courts to afford SVP's the same rights, Williams was not prejudiced. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1981 when he was 26-years-old, Williams entered a laundromat late at night with "his penis hanging out of his pants." He grabbed a woman, and after dragging her by the legs to a nearby park, raped her. Police officers had to "knock[ ] him off the victim."

Six months later, while released on bail pending trial for that crime, Williams pulled a woman into an unoccupied lavatory during a concert. He hit and choked the victim, threw her to the floor, and after forcing his penis into her mouth, raped her.

Following a term of imprisonment and while on parole for these crimes Williams raped again. This time the victim was a neighbor. Williams was sentenced to state prison for 21 years. In 2001, he was civilly committed to Atascadero State Hospital as an SVP.

In 2007, a petition was filed to extend Williams's commitment. After many continuances at defense counsel's request (the appropriateness of which is not challenged on appeal), in late 2010 trial was continued so Williams could participate in treatment programs.

By stipulated order in April 2017, Williams agreed to submit "to face-to-face interviews by the evaluating doctors" to perform the updated evaluations. Further delays ensued while the parties litigated what they called "the Curlee issue" in a bellwether case.^[1] Again in 2019, the parties stipulated that Williams would submit to new "face-to-face interviews" with psychologists.

In November 2020, Williams waived jury. Kathleen Longwell, a psychologist, conducted "full" interviews with Williams in 2007, 2010, and November 2019. Williams also told her he felt sensations (Longwell's term," 'tactile delusions' ") that he was being anally raped. These were associated with sexual thoughts and started when he was in prison. By 2019, these occurred almost every day "in his genital area." Williams described it as "an invisible hand" masturbating him.^[2]

In Longwell's opinion, the "tactile sensations" are a manifestation of Williams's mental illness and "paraphilia."^[3] They are outside of his control, and he cannot manage them on his own. Williams believes his medication, not mental disorder, causes the sensations. Longwell found this significant. It shows he lacks "adequate insight into his mental illness ...." And given that lack of insight, "he's not going to be able to self-manage in a less controlled environment."

Longwell concluded it is "highly likely" that Williams "was experiencing some degree of psychosis" each time he raped. She was especially concerned that he rapidly reoffended each time:

"[H]e's out on bail for the-for one sex offense, and while he's out on bail, he commits another sex offense. He goes to prison for those two-two offenses, and three months later, he commits another one." [¶] . . . [¶]

"[W]here he reoffends so quickly after a legal sanction . . . indicates compulsivity, it indicates a mental disorder, a Paraphilic Disorder, an inability to-to volitionally control themselves.

At the time of trial, Williams was 65-years-old and suffered from arthritis in his lower back and knees.^[4] Longwell acknowledged that violence and aggression tend to decrease as people get older. But in this case, she explained, "We're not going to see the kind of decrease with his age because he's still very agitated when his-when his psychosis isn't consistently medicated." She noted that Williams's age was considered in scoring his Static-99R test, but even then, he was determined to be an "above average risk."^[5] Longwell concluded, "even though his risk is lower than it was when he was a younger man, I can't say that it's-that age has had an immense impact on him."

Longwell believes Williams would have a "decent prognosis" if he consistently took his medications and underwent treatment, but neither is likely to occur because he does not think he has a mental illness. This creates an "ongoing problem" in convincing him to take his medications. As evidence of that, she noted that staff has been required to involuntarily medicate him numerous times.

Another psychologist, Douglas Korpi, reached similar conclusions after interviewing Williams in 2017 and 2020. He explained:

"What precisely makes this man a risk is that he's psychotic and impulsive because psychosis makes you impulsive. The fact that he's still focused on his genitals, you put impulsivity with genitals, you put those two things together, and it makes you concerned that when he gets out, he might do something impulsive once again related to sexual behavior, and what he's done before is rape women.

"So that's why I found him to be a sexually violent predator because I'm afraid that the combination of psychosis and genital stimulation will-will render him a danger when he's released to the community."

For Korpi, the "single most important issue in the case" is that Williams "tells me he has no idea" why he is supposed to take medications. He does not understand "in any real sense" that he suffers from a mental disorder. He voluntarily takes medications only because he knows if he refuses, he'll be strapped down.^[6]

The court determined that Williams "meets the criteria of being a sexually violent predator." It found "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Williams "has been convicted of a sexually violent criminal offense against one or more victims." The court noted that he has "two diagnosable mental disorders that predispose him to the commission of criminal sexual acts"- Paraphilic Disorder, sexually attracted to and aroused by forced, nonconsensual sex, and "Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar-Type." Without treatment in custody, Williams was determined to be "likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior." Addressing the effect of Williams's age, the court explained:

"If [he] was just a rapist at age 65, with the medical and health issues such as arthritis, diabetes, and at his age claims that he cannot get an erection, it would not appear . . . that he qualifies as an SVP .... However, a look at his history shows that there is more involved here.

"His Schizoaffective Disorder is working together with the paraphilic nonconsent disorder, . . . rendering him likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior as a result of diagnosed mental disorders such that he remains a serious and well-founded risk to reoffend." [¶] . . . [¶]

"While [Williams] has several medical issues and is at age 65 and claims he does not masturbate anymore by his own admissions, he is still subject to sexual tactile hallucinations even while on medication. Both Dr.'s Korpi and Longwell have opined that in spite of his age and health issues that [he] is capable of acting on the sexual arousal from his sexual tactile hallucinations by sexually assaulting someone in the community."

DISCUSSION

A. Exhibits Establishing Williams's Qualifying Offenses Were...