PEOPLE v. S.C.Real Party in Interest, Richard Anthony Smith, Supplemental Reply BriefCal.August 25, 2016LAW OFFICES FILED WITH PERMISSION ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER SHARON PETROSINO PUBLIC DEFENDER COPY MARK S. BROWN SENIOR ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER DANIEL J. COOK SENIOR ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER 14 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA MARTIN F. SCHWARZ SANTA ANA, CA 92701-4029 SENIOR ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER (714) 834-2144 FAX: (714) 834-2729 www.pubdef.ocgov.com SUPREME COURT August 24, 2016 F | [ EF Ly Clerk of the Court AUG:9.5 2016 California Supreme Court 350 McAllister Street Frank A.M . San Francisco, CA 94102 - McGuire Clerk Deputy’ Re: People v. Orange County Superior Court (Smith) Case No. $225562 (O.C. Sup. Ct. No. M-9531) Supplemental Reply Letter Brief To the Clerk of the Court: On June 15, 2016, the court invited the Orange County District Attorney to file a supplementalletter briefto address four delineated issues. The court also invited Mr. Smith (Real Party in Interest) to file a supplemental reply letter brief. The district attorney’s supplemental letter brief was filed on August 11, 2016. Mr. Smith hereby submits this supplemental replyletter brief. Introduction As discussed in greater detail in Real Party in Interest’s Opening Brief on the Merits, Reply / Supplemental Brief on the Merits, and this Supplemental Reply Letter Brief, section 5328 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,' the Sexually Violent Predator Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq; “SVPA”or “SVP Act”) (including newly added section 6603, subdivision (j); hereafter section 6603(j)) and this court’s prior rulings limit the district attorney’s access to Mr. Smith’s treatment records andprohibit the district attorney 1 All future references to a section are references to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwisenoted. CENTRAL OFFICE HARBOR OFFICE JUVENILE OFFICE MENTAL HEALTH NORTH OFFICE SUPERIOR WEST OFFICE 600 W.Santa Ana Blvd. 4601 Jamboree Rd. 341 City Drive S. 600 W.Santa Ana Blvd. 1440 N. Harbor Blvd. 600 FELONY PANEL 14120 Beach Blvd. Suite 1000 Suite 101 Suite 307 Suite 50 4th Floor 600 W. Santa Ana Blvd. Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA Newport Beach, CA Orange, CA Santa Ana, CA Fullerton, CA Suite 1E1 Westminster, CA 92701 92660 92868 92701 92835 Santa Ana, CA 92683 {714) 568-4860 (949) 476-4888 (714) 935-7578 (714) 568-4242 (714) 626-3700 92701 (714) 896-7281 (714) 568-4201 People v. Orange County Superior Court (Smith) Case No. $225562 (O.C. Sup. Ct. No. M-9531) Supplemental Reply Letter Brief Page 2 of9 from disseminating Mr. Smith’s treatment recordsto its retained expert. In addition, newly added section 6603(j) violates Mr. Smith’s right to equal protection of the laws. Furthermore, newly added section 6603(j) cannot be lawfully applied to Mr. Smith’s case retrospectively or prospectively. Even if it can be applied prospectively, the district attorney may only access treatment records generated in the course ofservices provided to Mr. Smith on or after January 1, 2016. Further, section 6603(j) expressly provides the district attorney with access to only those records reviewed and relied upon by the evaluators appointed by the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) to conduct “updated” evaluations after January 1, 2016. 1. Equal Protection As discussed in greater detail in Real Party in Interest’s briefs, application of section 66039) would violate Mr. Smith’s right to equal protection of the laws by treating him differently from similarly situated mentally disordered offenders (MDOs) and mentally disordered sex offenders (MDSOs). In its Supplemental Letter Brief, the district attorney asserts “Mr. Smith is not similarly situated to the MDO or MDSOwith regardto the application ofsection [6603(j)(1) because that section] applies to updated evaluations [and there] is no comparable provision in the MDO or MDSOstatutory scheme.” (Supplemental Letter Brief, p. 4.) The district attorney’s argumentis inapposite. The inquiry is not whether personsare similarly situated for all purposes, but whetherthey are similarly situated for purposesofthe law challenged. (Cooley v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 228, 253.) The challenged law (ie., section 6603(j)) creates an exception to section 5328’s confidentiality provisions. Since section 5328’s confidentiality provisions apply equally to SVPs, MDOs and MDSOs, SVPs are similarly situated to MDOs and MDSOsforpurposes of the equal protection analysis. (See, for example, People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1203 [concluding that MDOs and SVPsare similarly situated for purposes of equal protection analysis since both MDOs and SVPs suffer from mental disorders that render them dangerous to others, both have been convicted of a serious or violent felony, and both are civilly committed to the Department of Mental Health for treatment oftheir disorders.]; (In re Calhoun (2004) 121 CalApp.4th 1315, 1353 [concluding that, for forcible treatment with antipsychotic medication, MDOs and SVPsare similarly situated.]; In re Greenshields (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1293 [concluding that, for forcible treatment with antipsychotic medication, MDOs, SVPs and persons found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGIs) are similarly situated.].) In its Supplemental Letter Brief, the district attorney also asserts “Mr. Smith is not being treated in an unequal mannerbecausethedistrict attorney does have access to the MDO’s and MDSO’s confidential information and treatment records.” (Supplemental Letter Brief, p. 6.) In support of this assertion, the district attorney cites multiple code sections on pages 6-12 ofits Supplemental Letter Brief. However, noneof the sections cited by the People v. Orange County Superior Court (Smith) Case No. 8225562 (O.C. Sup. Ct. No. M-9531) Supplemental Reply Letter Brief Page 3 of9 district attorney provide a statutory exception to section 5328's general rule of confidentiality for MDOs and MDSOs. As discussed in greater detail in Real Party in Interest’s briefs, section 5328 reflects the legislative recognition that disclosing confidences impairs effective treatment of the mentally ill, and thus is contrary to the best interests of society. By adding section 6603(j) to the SVP Act, the Legislature has denied only SVPstheright to keep their treatment records confidential from prosecutors. The Legislature did not deny similarly situated MDOsand MDSOsthe right to keep their treatment records confidential from prosecutors. Through this amendment, the Legislature has denied SVPs the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the treatment afforded other similarly situated MDOs and MDSOs. Finally, in its Supplemental Letter Brief, the district attorney asserts “there is a compelling state reason to allow the district attorney access to all [confidential treatment records because] SVPspose a greater public safety risk than MDOs.”(SupplementalLetter Brief, pp. 12-13.) In support of its argument that SVPs pose a greater public safety risk than MD0Os, the district attorney cites the findings in People v. McKee (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1325, including evidence SVPs pose a unique danger to women and children, have diagnostic and treatment differences from MDOs, and a higherrisk of reoffending than MDOs. (Supplemental Letter Brief, p. 13.) However, none ofthose evidentiary distinctions provide the state with a compelling reasonto let the district attorney access Mr. Smith’s confidential treatment records and deny Mr. Smith the opportunity to meaningfully participate in treatment.’ To the contrary, the state has a compelling interest (and a constitutional mandate) to encourage Mr. Smith to participate in treatment. Finally, the district attorney asserts it should be granted access to Mr. Smith’s confidential treatment records because “only about 25 percent of SVPsparticipate in treatment.” (Supplemental Letter Brief, p. 13.) It can hardly besaid the state has a compelling interest in getting the confidential treatmentrecords of SVPs like Mr. Smith whoactually participate in treatment because 75 percent of SVPsdo notparticipate. To the contrary, the state has a compelling interest (and a constitutional mandate) to encouragegreater participation in treatment by keeping the treatmentrecords confidential. Ii! Ii! // ? Ifthis court determinesthe district attorneyis entitled to an evidentiary hearing,this court should remand this matter to the trial court for that evidentiary hearing to determine whether, applyingthestrict scrutiny standard, the district attorney can justify the disparate treatment of SVPs by showing the disparate treatment of SVPs is necessary to further compelling state interests. (People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1184, 1196-1198, 1208-1211.) People v. Orange County Superior Court (Smith) Case No. $225562 (O.C. Sup. Ct. No. M-9531) Supplemental Reply Letter Brief Page 4 of9 2. Retroactive and Prospective Application As discussed in greater detail below and in Real Party in Interest’s briefs, recent amendments to section 6603 (including newly added section 6603(j)) catastrophically weaken the confidentiality protections and effectively eviscerate the Legislature’s treatment goals. Thus, newly added section 6603(j) cannot be lawfully applied to Mr. Smith’s case retrospectively or prospectively. In Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1171 (emphasis added), this court madeclear, in considering an ex postfacto challengeto an earlier version of the SVP Act, the Legislature had “disavowed any ‘punitive purpose[ ],’ and declaredits intent to establish ‘civil commitment’ proceedings in order to provide ‘treatment’ to mentally disordered individuals who cannotcontrol sexually violent criminal behavior. [Citations.] The Legislature also madeclear that, despite their criminal record, personseligible for commitment and treatment as SVP’s are to be viewed ‘not as criminals, but as sick persons.’ [Citation.] Consistent with these remarks, the [Act] was placed in the Welfare and Institutions Code, surrounded on eachside by other schemes concerned with the care and treatment of various mentally ill and disabled groups.” Consistent with the legislative commitmentto provide treatment to SVPs, “[s]ection 5328’s confidentiality protections are designed ‘to encourage persons with mental or alcoholic problemsto seek treatment on a voluntary basis.’ ” (State Dept. ofPublic Health v. Superior Court (2015) 60 Cal.4th 940, 953-954,citing County ofRiverside v. Superior Court (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 478, 481; see also the Law Revision Commission comment accompanying Evidence Codesection 1014, which wascited in People v. Gonzales (2013) 56 Cal.4th 353, 379 andstates in relevant part: “Psychoanalysis and psychotherapyare dependent upon the fullest revelation ofthe most intimate and embarrassing details ofthe patient’s life... Unless a patient... is assured that such information can andwill be held in utmost confidence, he will be reluctant to make the full disclosure upon which diagnosis and treatment... depends.’’) Through its repeated weakening of the confidentiality protections in section 5328, the Legislature haslost sight ofits treatment goals in the SVP Actand the key role section 5328 plays in that treatment goal. In June 2000, the Legislature added subdivision (c) to section 6603 to permit DSH evaluators to review an alleged SVP’s confidential treatment records. But at least the DSH evaluators are “neutral” mental health professionals. After the June 2000 amendmentto section 6603,in Albertson v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 796, 807, this court held the district attorney is granted access to information from an alleged SVP’s treatment records“to the extent such informationis containedin an updated [or replacement] mental evaluation.” This year(effective January 1, 2016), the Legislature added section 6603(j) to also grant the district attorney direct access to an alleged SVP’s confidential treatment records. Permitting the district attorney, whois not a supporter or provider for treatment, but an advocate for the lifetime detention ofthe alleged SVP, to People v. Orange County Superior Court (Smith) Case No. §225562 (O.C. Sup. Ct. No. M-9531) Supplemental Reply Letter Brief Page 5 of9 access the confidential treatment records severely undermines the Legislature’s stated treatment goals in the SVP Act. In light of the recent diminution of the confidentiality protections in section 5328, this court should reaffirm the Legislature’s treatment goal (Hubbart v. Superior Court, supra, 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1171.), find that the confidentiality protections provided by section 5328 are vital to that treatmentgoal, find that the recent amendments to section 6603 (including newly added section 6603(j)) catastrophically weaken the confidentiality protections and effectively eviscerate the Legislature’s treatment goals, and thus rule the recent amendments to section 6603 cannot be lawfully applied retrospectively or prospectively. Even if this court finds the Legislature’s treatment goals have not been eviscerated, this court should find that section 6603(j) may only be applied prospectively. Legislative changes do not apply retroactively unless the Legislature expressesits intention that they should do so. (Wilke & Holzheiser, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (1966) 65 Cal.2d 349, 371; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1947) 30 Cal.2d 388, 393.) Furthermore, section 6603(j) may not be applied to retroactively waive the confidentiality provisions in section 5328. At the time the treatment services were provided to Mr. Smith, the Legislature provided that his communications would be confidential, his treatment records would not be disclosed to the district attorney (or an expert retained by the district attorney), and disclosureto the district attorney (or an expert retained by the district attorney) was unlawful. The Legislature cannot makethese promises of confidentiality to coax Mr. Smith to openly participate in treatment and then retroactively revoke its promise and disclose his communications and treatment records to the district attorney. Furthermore, Mr. Smith must be given the opportunity to decide whether, in light of the legislative changes, he wants to continue his participation in treatment. Therefore, the district attorney may only access treatment records generated in the course of services provided on or after January 1, 2016. In its Supplemental Letter Brief, the district attorney acknowledges a “newly enacted statute does not operate retrospectively,” but asserts the Legislature was merely clarifying an ambiguity in section 6603(c) and “[now] the SVPA explicitly provides the People the right to access the records relied upon by the DSH evaluators...” (Supplemental Letter Brief, pp. 14-16.) As discussed in the preceding paragraphs,despite the district attorney’s attempt to trivialize the Legislature’s changes to the confidentiality protections in section 5328, the change is not merely a clarification but rather a significant diminution of the confidentiality protections in section 5328, the ultimate consequence of which may be to underminethe legality of the entire SVP Act. 3. Limitations on DA’s Access to Records Asdiscussed in greater detail below and in RealParty in Interest’s briefs, section 6603(j) does not provide the district attorney with access to all confidential treatment records. Rather it expressly provides the district attorney with access to only those “records People v. Orange County Superior Court (Smith) Case No. 8225562 (O.C. Sup. Ct. No. M-9531) Supplemental Reply Letter Brief Page 6 of9 reviewed” by the DSH evaluators appointed to conduct “updated” evaluations after January 1, 2016. Furthermore,this statutory provision should beread to providethedistrict attorney with access to only those records reviewed and relied upon by the DSH evaluators. Records that the DSH evaluators did not rely upon should not be provided to thedistrict attomey. To avoid the limitations described above, the district attorney asserts in its Supplemental Letter Briefthere is “no practical distinction” between an“initial” evaluation, an “updated” evaluation and a “replacement” evaluation. (Supplemental Letter Brief, p. 19-22.) The district attorney’s assertions are contrary to the express wording in the SVP Act. First, section 6601 (not 6603) provides that an “initial” evaluation is initiated by DSH(not the district attorney) and performed before an SVP petition is filed by the district attorney. Second,section 6603 (not 6601) provides that “updated” and “replacement” evaluations are initiated by the district attorney (not DSH) and done by an evaluator after the SVP petition is filed. Third, section 6603, subdivision (c), provides that “updated” evaluations are done only if the district attorney “determines that updated evaluations are necessary in order to properly present the case for commitment”andonlyifthe district attorney requests an “updated”evaluation. Fourth, section 6603, subdivision (c), provides that “replacement” evaluations are done onlyif the district attorney requests a “replacement” evaluation and only if one or more of the evaluators is “no longer available to testify.” In addition, section 6603, subdivision (c)(2), delineates the specific circumstances under which an evaluatoris “no longer available to testify.” Further, section 6603, subdivision (c)(2)(D), provides that a “replacement” evaluation may not be requested bythe district attorney if the evaluator whoresigned or retired had previously opined the individualis not an SVP. Thus the legislator created separate code sections and significant distinctions for each category of evaluation. In addition, subdivision (j)(1) expressly refers to “updated” evaluations done pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 6603, not “initial” evaluations done pursuant to subdivision (c) or subdivision (e) of section 6601 and not “replacement” evaluations done pursuant to subdivisions (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 6603. If the Legislature had intended to include “replacement” evaluations, the Legislature would have simply stated “updated or replacement” evaluations in subdivision (j)(1) just as it had done in subdivision (c)(1). If the Legislature had intended to include “initial” evaluations in subdivision (j)(1), the Legislature would not have included the phrase “the evaluator performing an updated evaluation”in subdivision(j)(1) and would not haveincluded the phrase “listing all records reviewed by the evaluator pursuant to subdivision (c) [of section 6603]” in subdivision (j)(1), but would have simply included all evaluations done pursuant to sections 6601 and 6603 in subdivision (j)(1). Furthermore, newly added subdivision (j)(1) applies only to records reviewed and relied upon by a DSH evaluator onorafter January 1, 2016, and in conjunction with an updated People v. Orange County Superior Court (Smith) Case No. $225562 (O.C. Sup. Ct. No. M-9531) Supplemental Reply Letter Brief Page 7 of9 evaluation issued on or after January 1, 2016.3 Subdivision (j)(1) expressly states “the evaluator performing an updated evaluation shall include with the evaluation a statement listing all records reviewed by the evaluator...” and requires the court to issue a subpoena for those records and then provide a copy ofthose recordsto the district attorney. Before January 1, 2016, evaluators were not required to include a “statementlisting all records reviewed by the evaluator” and the court was not required to issue a subpoena for those records nor required to provide a copyofthose recordsto the district attorney. Thus, newly added subdivision (j)(1) applies only to records reviewed and relied upon by a DSH evaluator on or after January 1, 2016, and in conjunction with an updated evaluation issued on or after January 1, 2016.4 4. Prohibitions against Dissemination to Retained Expert As discussed in greater detail in Real Party in Interest’s briefs, even if newly added section 6603(j) can be constitutionally implemented, section 5328, the SVP Act (including newly added section 6603(j)) and this court’s prior rulings, prohibit the district attorney from disseminating Mr. Smith’s treatment recordsto its retained expert. In its Supplemental Letter Brief, the district attorney asserts (and assumes) the Civil Discovery Act (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.010 et seq.) permits the district attorney to retain experts, disseminate confidential records and compel mental health evaluations in the same way and to the sameextent a defendant namedin a civil case (which, for example, alleges damages arising out of an automobile accident) may retain experts, disseminate confidential records and compel mental health evaluations. (Supplemental Letter Brief, pp. 23-25.) The district attorney is wrong. While it is true the Civil Discovery Act has application to proceedings filed under the SVP Act, the designation of experts, dissemination of confidential records and compelled mental health evaluations are controlled by the very detailed procedures in the SVP Act (and section 5328). Unlike the civil litigant who must independently retain an expert pursuant to the Civil Discovery Act to evaluate the plaintiff who is suing for emotional distress, the district attorney is automatically provided (and limited) by the SVP Act with mental health evaluations performedby at least two and maybefourexperts appointed by the Department of State Hospitals (DSH). (See, for example, Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subdivision (d) [DSH initially appoints two psychiatrists or psychologists to evaluate the prisoner.] and 3 The district attorney appears to have concededthis point on page 24 ofits Supplemental Letter Brief where the district states: “Section 6603(j)(1) provides that the district attorney is entitled to the discovery ofall information reviewed in preparing updated evaluations after January 1, 2016.” * As discussed in section 3 above, the district attorney is further limited to only treatment records generated in the course of services provided onor after January 1, 2016. People v. Orange County Superior Court (Smith) Case No. 8225562 (O.C. Sup. Ct. No. M-9531) Supplemental Reply Letter Brief Page 8 of9 Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subdivision (e) [If the twoinitial evaluators do not agree that the prisoner is an SVP, DSHis required to appoint two independent professionals to evaluate the prisoner as an SVP.].) If the district attorney later determines updated evaluations are necessary in orderto properly present the case for commitment, the district attorney may request that the DSH experts perform updated evaluations. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6603, subdivision (c)(1).) If one or more of the DSH experts later become unavailable to testify for the district attorney in court proceedings,the district attorney may request that DSH appointanother expert to perform replacement evaluations. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6603, subdivision (c)(1).) Furthermore, each of the DHS experts must “evaluate the person in accordance with a standardized assessment protocol” developed and maintained by DSH. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6601, subdivision (c).) If the district attorney believes a DSH evaluator committed an error in the evaluation,the district attorney may ask the trial court to review the evaluation for material legal error. (People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti) (2002) 27 Cal.4th 888.) In this proceeding, the SVP Act provided the district attorney with multiple mental health evaluations of Mr. Smith by five DSH experts.> The SVP Act doesnot authorizethe district attorney to retain yet another expert to perform yet another mentalhealth evaluation of Mr. Smith. (See, for example, Sporich v. Superior Court (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 422, 425-426; superseded on other grounds by Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6603, subdivision (c) [‘The pertinent language ofthe SVP enactment is unambiguous. With the exception of certain circumstances not present here (citation omitted), the Welfare and Institutions Code allowsthe state to conduct two precommitment mental examinations-no more, and noless.”]; but see People v. Landau (2013) 214 Cal. App. 4 1.) Thus, notwithstanding the Civil Discovery Act, the SVP Act prohibits the district attorney from disseminating Mr. Smith’s treatment recordstoits retained expert. Evenifthe SVP Act authorizes the district attorney to retain yet another expert to perform yet another mental health evaluation of Mr. Smith, section 5328 and newly added section 6603(j) prohibit the district attorney from disseminating Mr. Smith’s treatment records to its retained expert. Although section 6603(j) expressly grants the court permission to disseminate the subpoenaedrecordsto the district attorney,® section 6603(j) does not permit the district attorney to disseminate Mr. Smith’s treatment recordsto its retained expert. Section 6603(j)(1) expressly states the “attorneys may use the records in proceedings underthis article and shall not disclose them for any other purpose.” Thus, although the district attorney may “use the records in proceedings underthis article” > Mr. Smith has been evaluated by the following DSH doctors: Dr. Putnam, Dr. Jackson, Dr. Schwartz, Dr. Rueschenberg and Dr. Zinik. ® As discussed in section 3 above, section 6603(j)(1) permits the court to disseminate only records reviewed and relied upon by a DSHevaluator onorafter January 1, 2016, and in conjunction with an updated evaluation issued on orafter January 1, 2016. People v. Orange County Superior Court (Smith) Case No. 8225562 (O.C. Sup. Ct. No. M-9531) Supplemental Reply Letter Brief Page 9 of9 (e.g., as exhibits at the probable cause hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6602) orthe jury trial (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6603)), the statute, by design,’ does not permit the district attorney to disseminate Mr. Smith’s treatment records “for any other purpose”(including toits retained expert). Conclusion Section 5328, the SVP Act(including newly added section 6603(j)) and this court’s prior rulings, limit the district attorney’s access to Mr. Smith’s treatment records and prohibit the district attorney from disseminating Mr. Smith’s treatment records to its retained expert. In addition, newly added section 6603(j) violates Mr. Smith’s right to equal protection of the laws. Furthermore, newly added section 6603(j) cannot be lawfully applied to Mr. Smith’s case retrospectively or prospectively. Even if it can be applied prospectively, the district attorney may only access treatment records generated in the course of services provided to Mr. Smith on or after January 1, 2016. Further, section 6603(j) expressly provides the district attorney with access to only those records reviewed and relied upon by the evaluators appointed by DSH to conduct “updated” evaluations after January 1, 2016. Respectfully submitted, ark S. Bro Senior Assistant Public Defender Attorney for Mr. Smith 7 Section 2 of Senate Bill No. 507 states: “Nothingin this act is intended to affect the determination by the Supreme Court of California, in People v. Superior Court (Smith) (Docket No. 8225562), whether an expert retained by the district attorney in a proceeding under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (Article 4 (commencing with Section 6600) of Chapter2 ofPart 2 ofDivision 6 of the Welfare andInstitutions Code)is entitled to review otherwise confidential treatment information under Section 5328 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.” DECLARATION OF SERVICE People v. Orange County Superior Court (Smith) Case No. $225562 (O.C. Sup. Ct. No. M-9531) STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE _) Reve Gonzales declares that she is a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, not a party to the above-entitled action, and has a business address at 14 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92701. That on the 24th day ofAugust 2016, I served a copy ofthe Supplemental Reply Letter Brief in the above-entitled action by depositing a copy thereof in a sealed envelope, postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at Santa Ana, California. Said envelopes were addressed (without the telephone numbers) as follows: Orange County District Attorney Deputy County Clerk Attn: Elizabeth Molfetta Attn: Hon. Kimberly Menninger 401 Civic Center Drive Orange County Sup. Ct., Dept. C-38 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Central Justice Center (714)347-8781 700 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 (657)622-5238 Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 85266 San Diego, CA 92186-5266 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true andcorrect, Executed on this 24th day of August 206, af/Santa Ana, California. ane Gonzalez cretary, Orange County Public Defender's Office
