WPCb; W}gVp^&^Rrj`_zh.c:a(MTq `c#<|<5wUyxZl=Z n?M}zvօi_6sVYuAjfj- EG4^-6[Q)5؝p2tu!;UeʃgBg/d!>Ed>UJn^IK&iJ{ [訽<'n 0v 0`" 0` 0` 0.B 0`p 08 0! 02! 0 " 0:" 0Y# 0_i# 0# 08$ 0% B*\' D/' D+' 0' D/d) 0) 06a* 0* 0:m+ 0^+ 0<, 1eA,U6,U>,U*- 1uD- 72- 1- 72n. 0jc. 0w/ 0z/ 00 00 0X1 02 02 0D3 0-5 0D5 6 B9 0A9 0T: 0hj: :;:HP LaserJet 2200 Series PS0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$OXXUSUS.,Ů/8 QK3eremy3|xUhttp://www.fdap.org).(O$(A Z(Times New Roman *+ (_2623  ..*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` */+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h (&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5 (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,KS*CODEKJ<6X9`(Courier NewKSK\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4NV2Keyboard KJ<6X9`(Courier NewKSK\  `&Times New RomanS <z:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KJ<6X9`(Courier NewKSK\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7?(X7  ?L%2A`Arial?  SK\  `&Times New RomanS7@(X7&  d d>)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7B(X7  ?L%2A`Arial?  SK\  `&Times New RomanS7@(X7>)2dxd0KS.SampleKJ<6X9`(Courier NewKSK\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8KS6TypewriterKJ<6X9`(Courier NewKSK\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Mi)QRSTUVWXxG/CEIMQUY]aAutoList11)a)OY(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# (M:2'$ !XXUSUS.,      0  (#$  0   BourquezCal.AppIn InSumahitCarmonyAnguloFulcherw]hileRowellYartzPompaWilloughbyShazierMurilloRasmusonBuffingtonCuccia QawiMerfieldKortesmakiHannibalHaynieRenfroT]herel]essSolorzanoJablonskiBaqlehB]ecauseTarantinoPokovichBrunerr]egardlessGodinezJenanKarrikerOglesby EDA CYA DJJp]ermitLemanuelRoberge t]o i]n TianWende i]f d(Vm$0   (,!$0  0` (#(#  (@$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# ` ^_`page page chapter volume footnote endnote  !XXUSUS.,  _ RAQ  @@> > FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  #RAQQRA\#TRAININGSEMINAR#QRA~#RAQRAQQRA L @VV"@@VV"#QRAF#VJanuary26,2008 H #V#%   RECENTDEVELOPMENTS  L INMENTALHEALTH   CIVILCOMMITMENTLAW ,|  # %\#{% @*# %2#VԈ  @@00$JeremyPrice#V#   StaffAttorney           INTRODUCTION  l  XTherearemanystatutoryschemesinCaliforniathatprovideforthecivilcommitmentof  individualsallegedtobedangerouslymentallyillatvariousstagesofcriminal   proceedings.Civilcommitmentlawsmostcommonlyencounteredbyindigentappellate   defenseattorneysaredirectedatadultsdeemedsexuallyviolentpredatorsandmentally   disorderedoffendersaswellascriminaldefendantsfoundnotguiltybyreasonofinsanity   andincompetenttostandtrial.Inaddition,Californiahasadoptedaparallelframework    fortheextendedcivilcommitmentofminorspreviouslysubjectedtodelinquency   proceedings.Othercivilcommitmentregimes,suchasLPSActconservatorships,donot   necessarilyrequireanyconnectiontopastorongoingcriminalproceedings.   Overthepastfewyears,newvoterinitiatives,legislativeenactments,andfederaland   statecaselawhavesubstantiallyimpactedCaliforniasvariouscivilcommitment  schemes.Thesematerialsareintendedtosummarizethoserecentdevelopments.These  materialsarenot,however,intendedtoprovideageneraloverviewofthestatutorycivil  commitmentschemesthemselves.Suchanoverviewcanbefoundinmaterialsprepared  byJ.BradleyOConnellinconjunctionwithhispresentationatFDAPs2006seminar  ( CALIFORNIAMENTALHEALTHCOMMITMENTREGIMENS:NGI,MDO,  SVP)andcanbefoundinthe ArticlesandOutlinessectionofFDAPswebsite  (www.fdap.org).#e#   8dd84   O  5  6h  O|   7    I.0  SEXUALLYVIOLENTPREDATOR(SVP)COMMITMENT    (#(#   A.0  Prop83andSB1128  (#(# Inthefallof2006,theSVPActwasamendedtwice:oncebytheLegislature(SB1128)  andoncebytheelectorate(Prop83).Herearethekeycivilcommitmentamendmentsto   theSVPActresultingfromtheseenactments:    OQRSTUVWXY(G/x3M"Q3"  Q32G/3  0    Inordertoqualifyasasexuallyviolentpredator,thepersonneedonlyhavebeen   convictedofasexuallyviolentoffenseagainst one ormorevictims(ratherthan    twoormorevictimsundertheoldlaw).(Welf.&Inst.Code,6600,subd.   (a)(1).)Q3݌ (#(# Ќ   OQRSTUVWXY(G/xxOQRSTUVWXY"Q3"  Q3 2G/3  0    A single juvenileadjudicationthatresultedinaYouthAuthority/Departmentof   JuvenileJusticecommitmentmaynowqualifyasthesolerequiredpredicate   sexuallyviolentoffense.(Welf.&Inst.Code,6600,subd.(a)(2)(H);6600,  subd.(g).)Q3 :݌(#(# Ќ  "Q3"  Q32G/3  0    Anenumeratedoffensemaynowqualifyasasexuallyviolentoffenseifcommitted  by threateningtoretaliateinthefutureagainstthevictimoranyotherperson.  (Welf.&Inst.Code,6600,subd.(b).)Q35݌(#(# Ќ  "Q3"  Q32G/3  0    Ifthevictimoftheallegedpredicatesexuallyviolentoffenseisunder14yearsold,  theoffenseshallconstituteasexuallyviolentoffense,irrespectiveofwhetherthe  offenseinvolved substantialsexualconduct,asdefinedintheformerversionof  theSVPAct.(Welf.&Inst.Code,6600.1.)Q3݌(#(# Ќ  "Q3"  Q32G/3  0    IffoundtobeanSVP,thepersonshallnowbecommittedforan indeterminate  term (ratherthanatwoyearterm).(Welf.&Inst.Code,6604.)Q3݌ (#(# Ќ  "Q3"  Q3S2G/3  0    Because_SVP_Ԁcommitmentsarenowforanindeterminateterm,periodicextended " commitmenttrialsarenolongerrequired.Asthelawcurrentlystands,anSVP # mayfileapetitionforunconditionalreleasewithorwithouttheconcurrenceofthe $  DirectorofMentalHealth.Theproceduresaredifferentdependingonwhetherthe % ! DirectorofMentalHealthconcurswiththecontentionssetforthintheSVPs &!" petitionforrelease:Q3S݌'"#(#(# Ќ  0  "Q3"  Q3E2G/3  0` (#(#  IftheDirectorofMentalHealthdeterminesthat thepersonsconditionhas )$% sochangedthatthepersonnolongermeetsthedefinitionofasexually *%& violentpredatorandconcurswiththeSVPspetitionforrelease,thetrial +&' courtshallholda showcausehearingtoassesswhetherprobablecause  existstosupporttheDirectorofMentalHealthsdetermination.(Welf.&  Inst.Code,6605,subd.(b).)Ifthetrialcourtfindsprobablecauseto  believetheSVPnolongermeetsthecommitmentcriteria,afullhearing  shallbesetonwhetherunconditionaldischargeisappropriate.(Welf.&  Inst.Code,6605,subd._(c_).)Atsuchahearing,theSVPmustbeaccorded   alltheconstitutionalprotectionstowhichheorshewasentitledattheinitial   commitmentproceeding,includingtherighttotrialbyjury,andtheburden   ofproofremainsonthestatetoprovebeyondareasonabledoubtthatthe   personstillmeetsthedefinitionofasexuallyviolentpredator.(Welf.&   Inst.Code,6605,subd.(d).)Ifthestatemeetsitsburden,theperson   remainsunderanindeterminatecommitment.Ifthestatefailstocarryits   burden,thepersonmustbeunconditionallydischarged.Q3Er݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  0  "Q3"  Q3#2G/3  0` (#(#  IftheDirectorofMentalHealthdoesnotconcurthattheSVPnolonger  meetsthecommitmentcriteria,thepersonmaystillfileapetitionfor  unconditionalreleasewithoutafavorablerecommendation.(Welf.&Inst.  Code,6608,subd.(a).)However,uponreceiptofsuchapetition, the  courtshallendeavorwheneverpossibletoreviewthepetitionanddetermine  ifitisbasedonfrivolousgroundsand,ifso,shalldenythepetitionwithout  ahearing.(Welf.&Inst.Code,6608,subd.(a).)Moreover,ifa  previouspetitionforunconditionalreleasehasbeendenied,thecourtshall  denythesubsequentpetition unlessitcontainsfactsuponwhichacourt  couldfindthattheconditionofthecommittedpersonhassochangedthata  hearingwaswarranted.(Welf.&Inst.Code,6608,subd.(a).)Ifthe  trialcourtsetsahearingonthepetitionforunconditionalrelease,the  burdenofproofisontheSVPtoestablishbyapreponderanceofthe  evidencethatheorshe wouldnotbeadangertoothersduetohisorher  diagnosedmentaldisorderwhileundersupervisionandtreatmentinthe   community....(Welf.&Inst.Code,6608,subds.(d),(I).)IftheSVP ! meetsthisburden, thecourtshallorderthecommittedpersonplacedwith " anappropriateforensicconditionalreleaseprogramoperatedbythestatefor # oneyearforoutpatientsupervisionandtreatment.(Welf.&Inst.Code, $  6608,subd.(d).)AftertheSVPhasspentoneyearasanoutpatient, the %!! courtshallholdahearingtodetermineifthepersonshouldbe &"" unconditionallyreleasedfromcommitmentonthebasisthat,byreasonofa '## diagnosedmentaldisorder,heorsheisnotadangertothehealthandsafety ($$ ofothersinthatitisnotlikelythatheorshewillengageinsexuallyviolent )%% criminalbehavior.(Welf.&Inst.Code,6608,subd.(d).)Again,the *&& SVPhastheburdenofestablishingtheseelementsbyapreponderanceof +'' theevidence.(Welf.&Inst.Code,6608,subd.(I).)Importantly, [t]he  courtshallnotmakethisdeterminationuntilthepersonhascompletedat  leastoneyearinthestate-operatedforensicconditionalreleaseprogram.  (Welf.&Inst.Code,6608,subd.(d).)Inotherwords,SVPsdonothavea  righttoahearingonwhetherunconditionalreleaseisappropriatewithout  firstservingayearunderoutpatientsupervision(unlesstheDirectorof   MentalHealthsorecommendsontheSVPsbehalf).Q3#I#݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  Todate,theCourtsofAppealhaveonlyruledonasmallnumberofchallengestothese   recentamendmentstotheSVPAct.Ofparticularinterestwillbetheinevitabledecisions   ontheconstitutionalityofindeterminatetermsofcommitmentandtheshiftingofthe   burdenontotheSVPtoobtainunconditionalreleasewithoutthesupportoftheDirector   ofMentalHealth.Theseamendmentseliminatekeyaspectsofthelawthatwerecitedby   boththeUnitedStatesandCaliforniaSupremeCourtsinupholdingSVPcivil   commitmentlawsadoptedbyCaliforniaandotherstates.    B.0  SB1128andProp83DidNotEliminateTheExtendedCommitment  Framework  2(#(# Asnotedabove,Prop83eliminatedthetwoyearcommitmentschemeandreplacedit  withaframeworkwherebytheinitialcommitmentwouldbeforanindeterminateperiod  oftime,thusobviatingtheneedforrecommitmenttrials.Inastrangeoversight,however,  SB1128andProp83completelyeliminatedthe_SVP_ԀActsreferencestoextended  commitments.Asaresult,forthosepeoplecommittedasSVPspriortothepassageofSB  1128and# #Prop83,therenolongerexistsanexplicitstatutorymechanismtoextendtheir  commitments.Nevertheless,districtattorneyshavecontinuedtobringrecommitment  petitionsallegingthatpost-Prop83extensionsshouldbeforindeterminateterms.The  SVPsfacingtheseextendedcommitmentpetitionshave,inturn,broughtabevyof  dismissalmotions,arguingthattheframeworksomissionofarecommitmentscheme   post-Prop83requirestheirrelease.Notsurprisingly,threeCourtsofAppealhave ! recentlydecidedtheelectorateandtheLegislaturedidnotintend,bythisomission,forall " SVPscommittedpriortotheadoptionofSB1128andProp83tobereleased. # ! ! OQRSTUVWXY(G/xxOQRSTUVWXY"Q3"  Q392G/3  0    InBourquezv.SuperiorCourt(2007)156Cal.App.4th1275,theThirdDistrict % ! CourtofAppealheldthat [b]ychangingthetermsofcommitmentunderthe &!" SVPAfromtwo-yeartermstoindefiniteterms,theLegislatureandthenthevoters '"# demonstratedanintenttokeepthosefoundtobesexuallyviolentpredators(SVPs) (#$ committeduntiltheynolongermeetthedefinitionofanSVP.Fromthevery )$% purposeoftheamendmentoftheSVPA,asavingclauseisimplied.Underthe *%& impliedsavingclause,thesuperiorcourthasjurisdictiontoproceedonthe +&' petitionstoextendpetitionerscommitments.UndertheprovisionsoftheSVPA,  asamendedbySB1128andbyProposition83,thepetitionstoextendcommitment  arepetitionsforindefinitecommitment.Q39*:݌(#(# Ќ  ! ! OQRSTUVWXY(G/xxOQRSTUVWXY"Q3"  Q3?2G/3  0    Similarly,inPeoplev.Shields(2007)155Cal.App.4th559,DivisionOneofthe  FourthDistrictCourtofAppealrejectedtheSVPsassertionthat thecourthadno  jurisdictiontofindhimtobeanSVPandrecommithimbecause[Welfareand   InstitutionCode]section6604'stwo-yearcommitmentprocedurehasbeen   eliminatedandtheamendedSVPstatutefailstoexpresslyrefertopersonsalready   confinedfortwo-yeartermsunderformersection6604.Werejectthiscontention   becauseShieldssproposedstatutoryinterpretationiscontrarytotheclear   legislativeintent.Q3?4?݌ (#(# Ќ  ! ! OQRSTUVWXY(G/xxOQRSTUVWXY"Q3"  Q3=C2G/3  0    Finally,inPeoplev.Carroll(2007,F051709),theFifthDistrictCourtofAppeal   reachedthesameresult,notingthattoholdotherwisewouldleadto absurd   consequences.Q3=CjC݌(#(# Ќ  0   (#(#   C.0  TheIndeterminateTermProvisionsFoundinSB1128andProp83MayBe  AppliedRetroactivelytoSVPsCommittedPriortotheAmendments  Adoption  D(#(#  PenalCodesection3,CodeofCivilProceduresection3,andCivilCodesection3all  providethatnewenactmentsshouldnotbeappliedretroactivelyunlessexpresslyso  declared.    "Q3"  Q3F2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Carroll(2007,F051709),thedistrictattorneyfiledanextended  commitmentpetitionbeforetheSVPActwasamendedtoprovidefor  indeterminateterms.Therefore,thecommitmentpetitionsoughttoimposeatwo  yearcommitment.Bythetimethecommitmenttrialcommencedseveralmonths  latertrial,theSVPActhadbeenamendedtoprovideforindeterminateterms.At   thattime,thedistrictattorneyannouncedthatanindeterminatetermwouldbe ! soughtratherthanthetwoyeartermidentifiedinthepetition.Afteracourttrial, " thedefendantwascommittedasanSVPforanindeterminateterm.TheFifth # DistrictCourtofAppealconcludedthatthedefendantwaivedanychallengetothe $  amendmentofthepetitionbyfailingtoobject.TheCourtofAppeal,however, % ! alsorejectedthedefendantsdueprocesschallengetotheadequacyofthenotice &!" hewasgivenonthemerits.Inaddition,theCourtofAppealheldthatbecausethe '"# petitionwasamendedandthetrialoccurredaftertheindeterminatetermprovisions (#$ tookeffectutilizationofthenewlyaddedindeterminatetermprovisionsofthe )$% SVPActdidnotconstituteanimpermissibleretroactiveapplicationofthestatute. Q3F*G݌*%&(#(# Ќ    +&' D.0  SealedJuvenileCourtRecordsMayNotBeUsedinSVPProceedings .M(#(# WelfareandInstitutionsCodesection781setsforthamechanismforthesealingof  juvenilecourtrecords.   Oncethecourthasorderedthepersons[juvenilecourt]recordssealed,theproceedings   inthecaseshallbedeemednevertohaveoccurred,andthepersonmayproperlyreply   accordinglytoanyinquiryabouttheevents,therecordsofwhichareorderedsealed.   (_Welf_.&Inst.Code,#5#Ԁ781,_subd_.(a).)   Bythestatutesownterms,sealedjuvenilerecordsmayonlybedisclosedattheformer   wardsrequestorbycourtorderforuseindefamationproceedingsortocalculate   automobileinsurancerates.(_Welf_.&Inst.Code,#mP#Ԁ781,_subds_.(b)(c).)   Ѐ#"R#   "Q3"  Q3R2G/3  0    InInreJamesH.(2007)154Cal.App.4th1078,theBoardofParoleHearings   (BPH)petitionedthejuvenilecourttodiscloseanadultprisonersjuvenilerecords  thathadbeensealedpursuanttoWelfareandInstitutionsCodesection781.BPH  intendedtousethesealedrecordstoevaluatewhetherthepersonmettheSVPcivil  commitmentcriteria.ThejuvenilecourtsummarilygrantedBPHspetition  withoutholdingahearing.DivisionThreeoftheFirstDistrictCourtofAppeal  reversedtheorderdisclosingtheprisonersjuvenilecourtrecords.TheCourtof  AppealnotedthatWelfareandInstitutionsCodesection781providesabrief,  exhaustivelistofsituationsinwhichsealedjuvenilerecordsmaybedisclosedthat  doesnotencompassuseforSVPproceedings.Moreover,theCourtofAppeal  rejectedtheAttorneyGeneralsargumentthatrecentamendmentstotheSVPAct  foundinProp83necessarilycreatedanimpliedexceptiontoWelfareand  InstitutionsCode#R#Ԁsection781allowingtheuseofsealedjuvenilecourtrecordsin  SVPproceedings.Q3RS݌(#(# Ќ   E.0  FailuretoCooperatewiththePeoplesExpertEvaluators .Y!(#(# WhenthestateinitiatesSVPproceedings, thepersonshallbeevaluatedbytwo # practicingpsychiatristsorpsychologists,oronepracticingpsychiatristandonepracticing $  psychologist,designatedbytheDirectorofMentalHealth.Ifbothevaluatorsconcurthat % ! thepersonhasadiagnosedmentaldisordersothatheorsheislikelytoengageinactsof &!" sexualviolencewithoutappropriatetreatmentandcustody,theDirectorofMentalHealth '"# shallforwardarequestforapetitionforcommitment....(Welf.&Inst.Code,#GX#Ԁ6601, (#$ subd.(d).)#C\#Ԁ )$% "Q3"  Q3\2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Sumahit(2005)128Cal.App.4th347,theproposedSVPrefusedtobe +&' interviewedbythePeoplesexperts.TheThirdDistrictCourtofAppeal  concludedthatthisrefusalprecludedhimfromchallengingthesufficiencyofthe  evidencethathecurrentlylackedtheabilitytocontrolhisallegedlydangerous  behavior,particularlyinlightofthefactthathefullycooperatedwithhisown  psychologist.Q3\]݌(#(# Ќ   F.0  ExpertEvaluationQualifications ._ (#(# _SVP_Ԁevaluators designatedbytheDirectorofCorrectionsortheDirectorofMental   Healthforpurposesofthissectionshallnotbeastategovernmentemployee,shallhaveat    leastfiveyearsofexperienceinthediagnosisandtreatmentofmentaldisorders,andshall   includepsychiatristsandlicensedpsychologistswhohaveadoctoraldegreein   psychology.(_Welf_.&Inst.Code,#\#Ԁ6601,_subd_.(g).)#Tb#Ԁ   "Q3"  Q3b2G/3  0    Afterthetwoevaluatorsoriginallyappointedtoevaluatetheproposed_SVP_ԀinInre   Wright(2005)128Cal.App.4th663didnotagreeastowhetherthedefendantmet  thecommitmentcriteria,thetrialcourtappointedtwomoreexpertspursuantto  WelfareandInstitutionsCodesection6601.Itwasunclearinthisifcaseifoneof  thesecondaryexpertsappointedtoevaluatethedefendantpossessedadoctoral  degreeinpsychology,asrequiredbyWelfareandInstitutionsCodesection6601,  subdivision(g).DivisionOneoftheFourthDistrictCourtofAppealassumedthe  appointmentofthisevaluatorviolatedtheapplicablestatutebutdeemedtheerror  harmless.Q3b,c݌(#(# Ќ   G.0  NoRighttoHaveCounselPresentatCourtOrderedUpdatedMentalHealth  Evaluation .g(#(#  Iftheattorneypetitioningforcommitmentunderthisarticledeterminesthatupdated  evaluationsarenecessaryinordertoproperlypresentthecaseforcommitment,the   attorneymayrequesttheStateDepartmentofMentalHealthtoperformupdated ! evaluations.(_Welf_.&Inst.Code,#b#Ԁ6603,_subd_.(c)(1).)#ui#Ԁ " "Q3"  Q3%j2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Burns(2005)128Cal.App.4th794,thetrialcourtorderedthe $  proposed_SVP_Ԁtosubmittoupdatedmentalhealthevaluationsbytwoexperts.The % ! trialcourtdeniedthedefendantsrequesttohavecounselpresentatthenew &!" evaluations.DivisionFiveoftheFirstDistrictCourtofAppealaffirmed,finding '"# thatneitherthelawnorpublicpolicysupportedthedefendantsargumentthathe (#$ hadaconstitutionalrighttothepresenceofcounselatanupdatedmentalhealth )$% evaluationinterview.Q3%jRj݌*%&(#(# Ќ   +&' "Q3"  Q3m2G/3  0    Ithadpreviouslybeenheldthatproposed_SVPs_Ԁdonothavetherighttohave  counselpresentattheirinitialpsychologicalinterviews.(Peoplev.Carmony  (2002)99Cal.App.4th317.)Q3mm݌(#(# Ќ   H.0  ConfidentialityofPsychologicalEvaluations urXo(#(# Apsychotherapy patient,whetherornotaparty,hasaprivilegetorefusetodisclose,and   topreventanotherfromdisclosing,aconfidentialcommunicationbetweenpatientand   psychotherapist....(_Evid_.Code,1014.)   However, [t]hereisnoprivilegeunderthisarticleifthepsychotherapistisappointedby   orderofacourttoexaminethepatient,butthisexceptiondoesnotapplywherethe   psychotherapistisappointedbyorderofthecourtupontherequestofthelawyerforthe   defendantinacriminalproceedinginordertoprovidethelawyerwithinformation   neededsothatheorshemayadvisethedefendantwhethertoenterorwithdrawaplea   basedoninsanityortopresentadefensebasedonhisorhermentaloremotional  condition.(_Evid_.Code,1017,subd.(a).)#i#  "Q3"  Q3It2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Angulo(2005)129Cal.App.4th1349,DivisionTwooftheFourth  DistrictCourtofAppealrejectedtheindigentSVPdefendantscontentionthathe  hadadueprocessrighttokeepconfidentialthefruitsoftheevaluationsconducted  byexpertsappointedonhisbehalf.Similarly,theCourtofAppealheldthatthe  psychotherapistpatientprivilegecodifiedatEvidenceCodesections1014and  1017didnotpermitanallegedSVPtorefusetodisclosethefruitsofanevaluation  conductedbyanexpertappointedonhisbehalf.Inparticular,EvidenceCode  section1017doesnotapplytoSVPproceedingsbecausetheyarenotcriminal  proceedings;rather,theyarespecialproceedingsofacivilnature.Q3Itvt݌(#(# Ќ   I.0  ExpertWitnessesandBias ursx (#(# "Q3"  Q3x2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Buffington(2007)152Cal.App.4th446,thedefensecalleda " psychologistwhotestifiedthatinhisopinionthedefendantwasabletocontrolhis # sexuallydangerousbehavior.Inanefforttoshowthedefensepsychologistsbias $  orprejudice,thePeoplecross-examinedhimaboutthefactsofthreeotherSVP % ! casesinwhichhehadtestifiedandhisopinionthatthosedefendantswerenot &!" SVPs.TheThirdDistrictCourtofAppealheldthatthefactsofthethreeother '"# SVPcasesandthepsychologistsopinioninthosecaseswerenotrelevanttoshow (#$ hisbiasorprejudice.However,theCourtofAppealfoundtheerroneous )$% admissionofthislineofquestioningnonprejudicial.#t#Q3x y݌*%&(#(# Ќ   +&'   J.0  CrawfordandHearsay urJ}(#(# "Q3 "  Q3}2G/3  0    Peoplev.Angulo(2005)129Cal.App.4th1349alsoheldthattheSixth  AmendmentconfrontationrightsarticulatedinCrawfordv.Washington(2004)  541U.S.36,barringtheintroductionoftestimonialhearsayofanunavailable  declarantwithoutaprioropportunityforcrossexamination,donotapplytoSVP   proceedings,whicharecivilinnature.Q3}}݌ (#(# Ќ  "Q3 "  Q3$2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Fulcher(2006)136Cal.App.4th41,anotherpanelofDivisionTwoof   theFourthDistrictCourtofAppealalsoconcludedthattheSixthAmendmentright    toconfrontationdoesnotextendto_SVP_Ԁcommitmentproceedings.However,   althoughdefendantsincivil_SVP_ԀproceedingsdonothaveaSixthAmendment   rightofconfrontation,theydohaveadueprocessrighttoconfrontationrootedin   fundamentalprincipleoffairnessanddecency.(SeePeoplev.Otto(2001)26   Cal.4th200,214[settingforththedueprocesstestapplicableto_SVP_   proceedings].)Q3$Q݌(#(# Ќ  "Q3 "  Q32G/3  0    InPeoplev.Carlin(2007)150Cal.App.4th322,oneofthePeoplesinvestigators  interviewedthevictimfromoneofthealleged_SVP_spriorsexualoffensesthat  hadoccurrednearlyadecadeearlier.Thetrialcourtthenpermittedthe  investigatortotestifyastowhatthevictimtoldhimabouttheincident,as  memorializedinhisreport.Thevictimdidnottestify.TheSixthDistrictCourtof  Appealconcludedthattheusethehearsaystatementsintheinvestigatorsreports  toprovethesubstantialsexualconductelementprejudiciallyviolatedappellants  dueprocessrights.Inparticular,theCourtofAppealfoundthatthecircumstances  surroundingthestatementsmadeapproximately10yearsaftertheeventsin  questiondidnotsupporttheirreliability.Q3/݌(#(# Ќ   K.0  CollateralEstoppel:thePeoplesUseofFactualFindingsMadeatPrior_SVP_#|#   CommitmentTrials ur!(#(# Thestatemaynotinvokecollateralestoppeltopreventthe_relitigation_Ԁoffactualfindings # madeapriorSVPcommitmentproceedingsconcerningtheSVPsmentalhealthor $  dangerousness. % ! "Q3 "  Q32G/3  0    InPeoplev.Munoz(2005)129Cal.App.4th421,DivisionOneoftheFourth '"# DistrictCourtofAppealaddressedtheappropriatenessofadmittingevidence (#$ concerningthedefendantspriorSVPcommitmentsatanextensiontrial.The )$% CourtofAppealfirstnotedthatanSVPextensionhearingisnotareviewhearing. *%& Therefore, exceptinalimitedsense,thepetitionercannotrelyonfindingsmade +&' atearlierSVPhearingstoshapetheissuesorproveSVPstatusinacurrent  hearing.AccordingtotheCourtofAppeal, [w]hileitisproper,whenrelevant,  totakejudicialnoticeofthepriorfinding,itisimpropertotakenoticeofthetruth  ofthatfinding.[Citations.]Thus,ifthereissomelegalconsequenceofthefactof  apriorSVPfinding,atrieroffactmaytakejudicialnoticeofit.However,the  factualtruthofanypriordeterminationthatthedefendantthenhadamental   disorderandwasasaresultdangerousisnotthepropersubjectofjudicialnotice.   BecausethefocusofallSVPproceedingsbothinitialandextendedcommitment   hearingsisthedefendantscurrentmentalhealthanddangerousness,theprior   findinghasnoresjudicataeffect.Furthermore,admissionofevidenceconcerning   thetruthoftheprior_SVP_Ԁfindingrunstheriskthatthetrieroffactwould   impermissiblyapproachitsroleasoneofdeterminingwhetheranythinghad   changedsincethepersonsprior_SVP_Ԁproceeding.Q3݌ (#(# Ќ  However,thestatemayinvokecollateralestoppeltobarthedefendantfrom_relitigating_  theissueofwhetherhehadbeenconvictedoftherequisitequalifyingpriorconviction(s).#P#  "Q3 "  Q3/2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Lopez(2006)146Cal.App.4th1263,thetrialcourtgrantedthe  Peoplesinliminemotionseekingtobarthedefendantfromlitigatingtheissueof  whetherhehadbeenconvictedoftherequisitequalifyingpriorconvictionsonthe  groundthatthejuryhaddecidedtheidenticalissueduringthedefendantsprevious  SVPcommitmenttrial.Thetrialcourttheninstructedthejurythatthecourthad  determinedthatthedefendanthadsufferedtherequisitequalifyingprior  convictionsandtheyjurywasnottodecidetheissue.Thejuryfoundthe  defendanttobeanSVP.TheSixthDistrictCourtofAppealconcludedthatthe  doctrineofcollateralestoppelmaybeappliedtotheissueofwhetheranSVP  defendanthasbeenconvictedofasexuallyviolentoffensewithoutviolatingdue  process.Inaddition,theCourtofAppealheldthatthejuryinstructionnotedabove  didnotamounttoanimproperdirectedverdict.Q3/\݌ (#(# Ќ  ##  L.0  DeterminingWhetheraPriorOutofStateConvictionAmountstoa " QualifyingOffenseundertheSVP##Act #(#(# ForpurposesoftheSVPAct,aconvictionforasexuallyviolentoffenseincludes [a] % ! priorconvictioninanotherjurisdictionforanoffensethatincludesalloftheelementsof &!" anoffensedescribedinsubdivision(b).(Welf.&Inst.Code,6600,_subd_.(a)(2)(c).) '"# Subdivision(b)liststheCaliforniaoffensesthatmeetthepriorqualifyingconviction (#$ requirement. )$% "Q3"  Q3Ϝ2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Whitney(2005)129Cal.App.4th1287,theFifthDistrictCourtof +&' AppealexaminedwhetherthedefendantspriorTexasconvictionforindecency  withachildamountedtoavalidpredicateoffense.TheTexasstatuteattheheart  ofthedefendantsconvictioncriminalizedconductwithchildrenuptoage17,  whilethecorrespondingCaliforniaoffenseappliedonlytoconducttoward  childrenundertheageof14yearsold.Here,therecordunambiguouslyindicated  thatthedefendantsTexasvictimswerenineyearsold.TheCourtofAppealheld   thattrialcourtsmaylookbeyondthebareelementsofanoffensetodetermine   whetheritmeetsthecriteriaofapriorqualifyingoffenseundertheSVPAct.Asa   result,theCourtofAppealfoundthatthedefendantspriorTexasconvictions   constitutedvalidqualifyingoffensesundertheSVPAct.Q3Ϝ݌ (#(# Ќ   M.0  DeterminingWhetheraPriorConvictionConstitutesaQualifyingOffense   underthe_SVP_#s#ԀActIsNotLimitedtoDocumentsContainedintheRecord   (#(# WelfareandInstitutionsCodesection6600,subdivision(a)(3),providesinrelevantpart:    Theexistenceofanypriorconvictionsmaybeshownwithdocumentaryevidence.   "Q3"  Q32G/3  0    InPeoplev.Fulcher(2006)136Cal.App.4th41,DivisionTwooftheFourth  DistrictCourtofAppealheldthatWelfareandInstitutionsCodesection6600,  subdivision(a)(3),doesnotlimitthedeterminationwhetherapriorconviction  constitutesasexuallyviolentoffensetoproofbydocumentaryevidence.Witness  testimonymaybenecessarytoestablishthatapriorconvictionamountedtoa  sexuallyviolentoffense. SinceaviolationofPenalCodesection288,subdivision  (a)(_nonforcible_Ԁlewdacts)[footnote]isoneoftheenumeratedoffensesthatmay  qualifyasapredicateoffense...,proofoftheelementsoftheoffenseorevidence  containedsolelywithintherecordofconvictionmaybeinsufficienttoestablish  theoffensequalifiesasasexuallyviolentoffenseorthattheoffenseinvolved  substantialsexualconduct.Unlikea[PenalCode]section288(b)offense(forcible  lewdacts),forceandduressarenotrequiredelementsofasection288(a)offense.  Substantialsexualconductalsoisnotrequired.Ifthisdeterminationwerelimited   todocumentaryevidence, asection288(a)offensewouldneverqualifywhenthe ! defendantpledguiltyornocontestpriortothepreliminaryhearing,andoften " wouldnotqualifyevenifevidencewaslimitedtotheelementsorrecordof # convictionofasection288(a)offense.Q3݌$ (#(# Ќ  ##  N.0  ConvictionbyNoContestPleaMayServeasPriorQualifyingOffense &!"(#(# PenalCodesection1016,subdivision(3),providesthataconvictionfollowingano (#$ contestplea maynotbeusedagainstthedefendantasanadmissioninanycivilsuit )$% baseduponorgrowingoutoftheactuponwhichthecriminalprosecutionisbased. *%&  +&' "Q3"  Q32G/3  0    InPeoplev.Yartz(2005)37Cal.4th529,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthat  thedefendants1978childmolestationconvictionfollowinganocontestpleamay  beusedasapriorconvictiontosupporthis_SVP_Ԁcommitment,notwithstanding  PenalCodesection1016,subdivision(3).AccordingtotheSupremeCourt,an  _SVP_Ԁcivilcommitmentproceedingisnota civilsuitwithinthemeaningofPenal  Codesection1016,subdivision(3).Rather,_SVP_Ԁproceedingsarespecial   proceedingsthatarecivilinnature.Q3݌ (#(# Ќ  ##  O.0  WaiverofStatutoryRighttoTrialbyJury thm (#(# Boththealleged_SVP_Ԁandthestatehavearighttodemandajurytrialinan_SVP_   proceeding.(_Welf_.&Inst.Code,6603,_subds_.(a)(b).)#K#   "Q3"  Q3c2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Rowell(2005)133Cal.App.4th447,theThirdDistrictCourtof   Appealconcludedthattherighttotrialbyjuryinan_SVP_Ԁproceedingisacreature   ofstatuteandnotconstitutionallyrequired.Therefore,theCourtofAppealheld  thatadefendantspersonalwaiverofajurytrialinan_SVP_Ԁproceedingisnot  required,andatrialcourtmayproperlyacceptdefensecounselsdeclarationthat  thedefendantwantedacourttrialinsteadofajurytrial.Q3c݌(#(# Ќ   P.0  RighttoTestifyoverObjectionofDefenseCounsel? th(#(# "Q3"  Q3"2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Allen(formerlypublishedat144Cal.App.4th1132),DivisionTwoof  theFourthDistrictCourtofAppealheldthatinan_SVP_Ԁjurytrialthedefendanthas  noconstitutionalrighttotestifyovertheobjectionofhisattorneybecause_SVP_  proceedingsarespecialproceedingsofacivilnatureandhisattorneycouldwaive  hisrighttotestifyonthegrounddoingsowouldbeharmfultohisdefense.The  CaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewinthiscase(S148949),andbriefingin  thatcourtwascompletedinJuly2007.#.#Q3"O݌ (#(# Ќ   Q.0  RighttoSelfRepresentation? th "(#(# "Q3"  Q3^2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Willoughby(2006)138Cal.App.4th1430,theSixthDistrictCourtof $  Appealheldthat_SVP_ԀdefendantsdonothaveaSixthAmendmentoradueprocess % ! righttoselfrepresentation.TheCourtofAppealdeclinedtoaddresswhether_SVP_ &!" defendantshaveacommonlaworstatutoryrighttoselfrepresentation,becauseit '"# determinedthatevenifthedefendanthadsucharightinthiscase,thedenialofhis (#$ motiontorepresenthimselfwasnonprejudicial. 0(#(#Q3^݌)$%(#(# Ќ   R.0  ProsecutorialMisconduct th+&'(#(# Ї"Q3"  Q3 2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Shazier(formerlypublishedat139Cal.App.4th294),theSixth  DistrictCourtofAppealheldthattheprosecutorcommittedprejudicialmisconduct  byinformingthejuryoftheconsequencesoffindingthedefendanttobean_SVP_.  TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewinthiscasebehindPeoplev.Lopez  (S143615),whichwasarguedandsubmittedonNovember6,2007.Q3 :݌(#(# Ќ   S.0  ProbableCauseHearingmustBeHeldBeforethe_SVP_##ԀTrial th (#(# AccordingtoWelfareandInstitutionsCodesection6602,thetrialcourtmustholda   probablecausehearingpriortoholdingatrialontheSVPpetition.    "Q3"  Q3s2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Hayes(2006)137Cal.App.4th34,thetrialcourtdidnotholdthe   mandatoryprobablecausehearinguntilthejurywasdeliberatingontheSVP   petitionattheendofthedefendantstrial.DivisionOneoftheFirstDistrictCourt   ofAppealconcludedthatundertheSVPActtheprobablecausehearingisa   necessaryprerequisite(notanaccompanimentoranafterthought)totrial.  Therefore,thetrialcourterredinconductingtheprobablecausehearingattheend  ofthetrialonthepetition.However,relyingonPeoplev.PompaOrtiz(1980)27  Cal.3d519,whichgovernsthedeterminationofhowandwhenerrorscommittedat  acriminalpreliminaryhearingmeritreversal,theCourtofAppealdeemedthe  errorharmless.#U# Q3s݌(#(# Ќ   T.0  EffectofReversalofConvictionThatLedtotheInitiationof_SVP_##  Proceedings th(#(# WelfareandInstitutionsCodesection6601,subdivision(a)(2),providesthatanSVP  petition shallnotbedismissedonthebasisofalaterjudicialoradministrative  determinationthattheindividualscustodywasunlawful,iftheunlawfulcustodywasthe  resultofagoodfaithmistakeoffactorlaw.   "Q3"  Q32G/3  0    InInreSmith(formerlypublishedat141Cal.App.4th217),thepetitionerwas " convictedoffailingtoregisterasasexoffender.Whilereviewofhisconviction # waspendingintheCaliforniaSupremeCourt,hewasevaluatedforSVP $  commitmentandthedistrictattorneyfiledanSVPpetition.Severalmonthslater, % ! theCaliforniaSupremeCourtreversedhisconvictionforfailuretoregisteron &!" instructionalgrounds,andthedistrictattorneyelectednottorefilechargesagainst '"# him.Nevertheless,thedistrictattorneysoughttomoveforwardwiththenewly (#$ initiatedSVPproceedings.Petitionerthenfiledapetitionforawritofhabeas )$% corpusobjectingtothetrialcourtconductinganyproceedingsontheSVPpetition. *%& DivisionSevenoftheSecondDistrictCourtofappealdeniedthewrit,holdingthat +&' thereversalofthepetitionersconvictiondoesnotprecludethetrialcourtfrom  continuingwith_SVP_Ԁproceedingsthathadalreadybegun.Insupportofthis  position,theCourtofAppealcitedWelfareandInstitutionsCodesection6601,  subdivision(a)(2),andconcludedthatthepetitionerscustodywasunlawfulbut  effectuatedingoodfaith.TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewinthis  case(S108291),andoralargumentwasheldonJanuary9,2008.Q3݌ (#(# Ќ   U.0  CivilDismissalStatuteNotApplicableto_SVP_ԀProceedings he (#(# CodeofCivilProceduresection583.310providesthatatrialmustcommencewithinfive    yearsoncetheactionhasbeenfiled.Furthermore,pursuanttoCodeofCivilProcedure   section583.320,ifanewtrialisgrantedbecauseofareversalormistrial,thetrialshould   commencewithinthreeyearsofthereversalormistrial.   "Q3"  Q32G/3  0    InPeoplev.Evans(2005)132Cal.App.4th950,in1999,ajurywasunableto   reachaverdictonan_SVP_Ԁpetitionfiledin1998.In2003,thedefendantmovedto  dismissthepetitionunderthecivildismissalstatutesdiscussedabove.Thetrial  courtdeniedthemotion.DivisionFouroftheFirstDistrictCourtofAppeal  affirmed,holdingthatthecivildismissalstatutesdonotapplyto_SVP_Ԁproceedings.  First,theCourtofAppealnotedthat_SVP_Ԁproceedingsare specialproceedings  andnotcivilactions.Bythecivildismissalstatutesownterms,theydonotapply  tospecialproceedings.Second,theCourtofAppealconcludedthatapplicationof  thecivildismissalstatutesto_SVP_Ԁproceedingswouldbeinconsistentwithpublic  policyandtheintentofthe_SVP_ԀAct.##Q32݌(#(# Ќ   V.0  CivilDiscoveryAct hem(#(# UndertheCivilDiscoveryAct: Discoverymaybeobtainedoftheidentityandlocation  ofpersonshavingknowledgeofanydiscoverablematter....(CodeCiv.Proc.,   2017.010.) ! "Q3"  Q32G/3  0    InPeoplev.Dixon(2007)148Cal.App.4th414,thetrialcourtdeniedthe # defendantsmidtrialrequesttoorderthePeopletodisclosetheprosecutionvictim $  witnessescontactinformation.DivisionTwooftheFourthDistrictCourtof % ! Appealagreedthatordinarilysucharequestshouldbegrantedinan_SVP_ &!" proceedingbutheldthatthedefendantdidnotbringthemotionpretrialas '"# requiredundertheCivilDiscoveryActanddidnotcitethespecificstatutory (#$ provisionunderwhichhewasseekingsuchdisclosure.##ԀTherefore,theCourtof )$% Appealaffirmedthedenialofthedefendantsrequestfordiscovery.Q3݌*%&(#(# Ќ   +&' UndertheCivilDiscoveryAct: Anypartymayobtaindiscoveryby...[_r]equests_Ԁfor  admissions.(CodeCiv.Proc.,2019.010,subd.(e).)  "Q3"  Q32G/3  0    InMurillov.SuperiorCourt(2006)143Cal.App.4th730,thetrialcourtpermitted  thePeopletopropoundrequestsforadmissionstothedefendantinaccordance  withtheCivilDiscoveryAct.DivisionThreeoftheFourthDistrictCourtof   Appealgrantedthedefendantswritpetition,holdingthatrequestsforadmissions   manynotbepropoundedinSVPproceedingsbecausetheirusewouldeviscerate   theSVPActssrequirementthatthePeopleproveitscasebeyondareasonable   doubt.AccordingtotheCourtofAppeal,torelievethestateofthisburdenwould   violatethedefendantsdueprocessrights.Q3 ݌ (#(# Ќ   W.0  Castration he (#(# "Q3"  Q32G/3  0    InPeoplev.Flores(2006)144Cal.App.4th625,thedefendantvoluntarily  underwentchemicalandsurgicalcastration.Attrialontherecommitmentpetition,  thePeoplesexpertsconcededthattheactuarialriskinstrumentonwhichthey  relied(theStatic99)didnotaccountforcastration.Nevertheless,thePeoples  expertsopinedthatthedefendantstillmettherecommitmentcriteria,andthejury  agreed.TheFifthDistrictCourtofAppealheldtheevidencesufficienttofindthat  thedefendantwaslikelytoreoffend,notwithstandingthefactthathehadbeen  castrated.Q3݌(#(# Ќ   X.0  OutpatientTreatmentPetitionforConditionalRelease he(#(# WelfareandInstitutionsCodesection6608permitsSVPstofileapetitionforconditional  releaseforoutpatientstatuswithouttherecommendationorconcurrenceofstateofficials.   Thecourtshallholdahearingtodeterminewhetherthepersoncommittedwouldbea   dangertothehealthandsafetyofothersinthatitislikelythatheorshewillengagein ! sexuallyviolentcriminalbehaviorduetohisorherdiagnosedmentaldisorderifunder " supervisionandtreatmentinthecommunity.Ifthecourtatthehearingdeterminesthat # thecommittedpersonwouldnotbeadangertoothersduetohisorherdiagnosedmental $  disorderwhileundersupervisionandtreatmentinthecommunity,thecourtshallorderthe % ! committedpersonplacedwithanappropriateforensicconditionalreleaseprogram &!" operatedbythestateforoneyear.Asubstantialportionofthestate-operatedforensic '"# conditionalreleaseprogramshallincludeoutpatientsupervisionandtreatment.(Welf. (#$ &Inst.Code,6608,subd.(d).) )$% "Q3"  Q32G/3  0    InPeoplev.Rasmuson(2006)145Cal.App.4th1487,thetrialcourtdeniedan +&' SVPspetitionforconditionalreleaseforoutpatienttreatmentpursuanttoWelfare  andInstitutionsCodesection6608.Asathresholdmatter,DivisionTwoofthe  SecondDistrictCourtofAppealheldthatthesubstantialevidencestandardof  reviewappliestoappealsfromthedenialofapetitionforconditionalrelease.On  themerits,theCourtofAppealconcludedthatthetrialcourtsdenialwasnot  supportedbysubstantialevidence.Q3+݌ (#(# Ќ   Y.0  PublicAccessto_SVP_ԀProceedings heCԀ (#(# "Q3"  Q32G/3  0    InPeoplev.Dixon(2007)148Cal.App.4th414,thetrialcourtgrantedthemedias    requesttoteleviseorvideotapethe_SVP_Ԁproceedings.DivisionTwooftheFourth   DistrictCourtofAppealagreedwiththedefendantthatthepressdoesnothavea   constitutionalrighttohaveacamerainthecourtroomandthatthetrialcourtfailed   toconsideradequatelythefactorssetforthinCaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule   1.150(e)(1).Nevertheless,theCourtofAppealfoundthetrialcourtserroneous  mediaaccessrulingharmlessbecauseitdidnotdenyhimafairtrialinviolationof  hisdueprocessrights.Q3݌(#(# Ќ   Z.0  ForcedMedication he(#(# "Q3"  Q3 2G/3  0    InInreCalhoun(2004)121Cal.App.4th1315,DivisionSixoftheSecondDistrict  CourtofAppealconcludedthattheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenth  AmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionpermitstheinvoluntarymedication  ofacompetent_SVP_Ԁwith_antipsychotic_Ԁdrugsintheabsenceofanemergencyonly  whensuchtreatmentisinthe_SVP_smedicalinterest.Q3 7݌(#(# Ќ      II.0  MENTALLYDISORDEREDOFFENDER(MDO)COMMITMENT A(#(#   A.0  UntimelyFiledExtendedCommitmentPetitions A(#(#    `  PenalCodesection2972,whichgovernstheMDO_recommitment_Ԁprocedure,provides:   priortotheterminationofacommitmentunderthissection,apetitionfor_recommitment_   maybefiledtodeterminewhetherthepatientcontinuestomeetthestatutory   commitmentcriteria.(Pen.Code,2972,_subd_.(e).)   "Q3"  Q32G/3  0    InPeoplev.Allen(2007)42Cal.4th91,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtdecidedthe    followingquestion: doesthetrialcourthaveauthoritytoextendanMDOs   commitmentifthepetitionisfiledafterthepriorcommitmenthasterminated?   AllenansweredthisquestioninthenegativeandheldthattheMDOstatute   imposedamandatoryrequirementthata_recommitment_Ԁpetitionmustbefiled   beforetheterminationofthepriorcommitment.ThePeoplesfailuretocomply   withthismandatoryfilingdeadlinedeprivesthetrialcourtofjurisdictionand  requiresdismissaloftheextendedcommitmentpetition.Dismissal,however,does  notautomaticallyentitlethepatienttorelease,asheorshemaystillbesubjectto  anLPSActconservatorshippursuanttoWelfareandInstitutionsCodesection  5000etseq.Q3E݌(#(# Ќ   B.0  UntimelyHeldExtendedCommitmentTrial A(#(# PursuanttoPenalCodesection2972,subdivision(a),trialonanextendedcommitment  petition shallcommencenolaterthan30calendardaysbeforethetimetheMDOwould  havebeenreleased, unlessthetimeiswaivedbythepersonorunlessgoodcauseis  shown.Unlikethemandatorydeadlineforfilinganextendedcommitmentpetition  discussedinAllen,however,the30daytrialdeadlineisdirectory.(Peoplev.Noble  (2002)100Cal.App.4th184,188.)   "Q3"  Q32G/3  0    InPeoplev.Cobb(2007)157Cal.App.4th393,DivisionTwooftheFourth " DistrictCourtofAppealrejectedanMDOscontentionthathisrighttodue # processwasviolatedbecausetrialonthecommitmentpetitiondidnotbeginuntil $  afterhewasduetobereleased.AccordingtotheCourtofAppeal,becausethe % ! MDOhadnoticeandanopportunitytobeheardatthetimeoftheinitial &!" commitment,hiscontinueddetentionpasthisreleasedatedidnotoffenddue '"# process.Essentially,theCourtofAppealdeterminedthatbecausetherehad (#$ alreadybeenadeterminationthathewasanMDO,andthepurposeofthe )$% extendedcommitmenttrialwassimplytoprovethathestillmetthecommitment *%& criteria,itwasconstitutionallypermissibletokeephimconfineduntiltheendof +&' thetrialafterhisstatutorilycontemplatedreleasedate.Inaddition,theCourtof  AppealconcludedthattheMDOinthiscasewasunabletodemonstrateactual  prejudicesufficienttomeritdismissalofthepetitionondueprocessgrounds.Q3݌(#(# Ќ  ##  C.0  OutpatientTreatment A (#(# _MDOs_Ԁmayserveallorpartfotheircommitmentasanoutpatientunderthesupervisionof   theConditionalReleaseProgram(_CONREP_).(Pen.Code,2972,_subd_.(d).)Time   spentasanoutpatient,however,doesnotcounttowardtheMDOsmaximumtermof   commitment.(PenCode,2972,_subd_.(c).)    "Q3 "  Q3? 2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Morris(2005),126Cal.App.4th527,theMDOwasplacedon   outpatientstatus.Thedistrictattorneydidnotfileanextendedcommitment   petitionuntiljustafterhisoneyearcommitmentwasoriginallysettoexpire.The   trialcourtgrantedtheMDOsmotiontodismisstheextendedcommitmentpetition   asuntimely.DivisionOneoftheFourthDistrictCourtofAppeal,however,  reversedandreinstatedtheextendedcommitmentpetition.RelyingonPenalCode  section2972,theCourtofAppealnotedthatbecausetheMDOdidnotreceive  (andwasnotentitledto)creditstowardhismaximumtermofcommitmentwhile  anoutpatient,thedeadlineforfilinganextendedcommitmentpetitionhadnot  actuallypassed.ThePeoplemustfileanextendedcommitmentpetitionbeforethe  MDOhasservedoneyearincustody.TheMDOinMorrishadnotyetserveda  yearasaninpatientatthetimetheextendedcommitmentpetitionwasfiled.Q3? l ݌(#(# Ќ  "Q3!"  Q32G/3  0    InPeoplev.May(2007)155Cal.App.4th350,followingabenchtrial,thetrial  courtrecommittedtheMDOtothestatehospitalforanotheryear.Atthe  conclusionofthetrial,theMDOaskedthecourttoconditionallyreleasehimfor  outpatienttreatment.Thetrialcourtdeniedtherequest.Onappeal,theMDO  contendedthatthetrialcourtdidnotrealizeithadtheauthority-pursuanttoPenal   Codesection2972,subdivision(d)-toplacehiminanoutpatienttreatment ! program.TheAttorneyGeneralarguedthatconditionalreleaseforoutpatient " treatmentmayonlybeinitiatedinseparateproceedingspursuanttoPenalCode # sections1603and1604.DivisionThreeoftheFirstDistrictCourtofAppeal $  agreedwiththeMDOthatPenalCodesection2972,subdivision(d),authorized % ! thetrialcourttoorderanMDOconditionallyreleasedforoutpatienttreatmentat &!" theconclusionofanMDOextendedcommitmenttrialwithoutholdingaseparate '"# hearingspecificallydevotedtooutpatientreleaseissues.Q3݌(#$(#(# Ќ   +&' Ї  D.0  DistrictAttorneyMayNotFileInitialorExtendedCommitmentPetitions  WithoutWrittenEvaluationfromtheMedicalDirectorStatingThatthe  PersonsMentalDisorderIsNot(orCannotBeKept)inRemission K(#(#  [I]ftheprisonersseverementaldisorderisnotinremissionorcannotbekeptin   remissionwithouttreatment,themedicaldirectorofthestatehospitalwhichistreating   theparolee...shallsubmittothedistrictattorneyofthecounty...ofcommitment,his   orherwrittenevaluationonremission.(Pen.Code,2970.)    Thedistrictattorneymaythenfileapetitionwiththesuperiorcourtforcontinued   involuntarytreatmentforoneyear.(Pen.Code,2970.)##   "Q3""  Q3E2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Garcia(2005)127Cal.App.4th558,whilereceivingtreatmentasan   MDOaspartofhisparole,themedicaldirectorofthestatehospitalsentaletterto   thedistrictattorneyadvisingthatthepatientsmentaldisorderwasinremission  andthataninitialcommitmentwasnotbeingsought.Nevertheless,thedistrict  attorneyfiledaninitialcommitmentpetition,andtheparoleewascommittedasan  MDOfollowingajurytrial.DivisionTwooftheFourthDistrictCourtofAppeal  concludedthedistrictattorneylackedtheauthoritytofileaninitialcommitment  petitionwithoutawrittenevaluationfromthemedicaldirectorofthestatehospital  opiningthattheMDOsseverementaldisorderisnotinremissionandcannotbe  keptinremissionwithoutinvoluntarytreatment.Q3Er݌(#(# Ќ  "Q3#"  Q32G/3  0    InPeoplev._Marchman_Ԁ(2006)145Cal.App.4th78,theThirdDistrictCourtof  Appealreachedasimilarconclusionandheldthatthedistrictattorneylackedthe  authoritytofileanextendedcommitmentpetitionwithoutawrittenevaluation  fromthemedicaldirectorofthestatehospitalopiningthattheMDOssevere  mentaldisorderisnotinremissionandcannotbekeptinremissionwithout   involuntarytreatment.(SeealsoCucciav.SuperiorCourt(2007)153Cal.App.4th ! 347[whereDivisionSixoftheSecondDistrictCourtofAppealreachedthesame " result].)Q3݌#(#(# Ќ   E.0  Remission "% !(#(# TobecommittedasanMDO,thePeoplemustprovebeyondareasonabledoubtthatthe '"# personhasaseverementaldisorderthatisnotinremissionorcannotbekeptinremission (#$ withoutinvoluntarytreatment.(Pen.Code,2970.)Apersonisnotinremissionifheor )$% shehasbeenphysicallyviolent(exceptinselfdefense)duringtheyearprecedingthe *%& MDOtrial.(Pen.Code,2962,_subd_.(a).) +&' Ї"Q3$"  Q3%2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Burroughs(2005)131Cal.App.4th1401,DivisionSixoftheSecond  DistrictCourtofAppealheldthatifanMDOhasbeenphysicallyviolentduring  theyearperiodbeforea_recommitment_Ԁdeterminationismade,thetrialcourtis  automaticallyrequiredtofindthatheorsheisnotinremission.TheCourtof  Appealconcludedthatitsholdingdidnotamounttoanunconstitutionalmandatory  presumption.  Q3%-%݌ (#(# Ќ   F.0  ForcedMedication ' (#(# "Q3%"  Q3T(2G/3  0    InInreQawi(2004)32Cal.4th1,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthatina    _nonemergency_ԀsituationanMDOcanonlybecompelledtobetreatedwith   _antipsychotic_Ԁmedicationifdeterminedbyacourttobeincompetenttorefuse   medicaltreatmentortobeadangertootherswithinthemeaningofWelfareand   InstitutionsCodesection5300.Q3T((݌ (#(# Ќ   G.0  UntimelyChallengetoInitialCommitmentCriteria *(#(# "Q3&"  Q3z+2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Merfield(2007)147Cal.App.4th1071,aprisonerwaivedhisrightto  ahearingonwhetherhesufferedfromaseverementaldisorderandshouldbe  treatedbytheDepartmentofMentalHealthasaconditionofhisparole.Afterhis  initialcommitmentexpired,hefiledapetitionchallengingthedeterminationthat  hequalifiedasanMDO.DivisionSixoftheSecondDistrictCourtofAppealheld  thatbywaitinguntilhisinitialcommitmenthadalreadyexpired,theMDOwaived  hisrighttocontesthismentalstateatthetimeofthecommissionoftheunderlying  offense.Q3z++݌(#(# Ќ   H.0  QualifyingPriorOffenses /(#(# TomeettheinitialMDOcommitmentcriteria,theprisonermusthavecommittedan   enumeratedqualifyingprioroffenseoranonenumeratedoffenseinwhichtheprisoner !  usedforceorviolence,threatenedanotherwiththeuseofviolence,or causedserious " bodilyinjury.(Pen.Code,2962,_subd_.(e).) # "Q3'"  Q3.12G/3  0    InPeoplev.Green(2006)142Cal.App.4th907,DivisionSixoftheSecond % ! DistrictCourtofAppealconcludedthattheprisonersfelonyvandalismconviction &!" didnotmeetthedefinitionofapriorqualifyingoffense.TheCourtofAppeal '"# concludedthatPenalCodesection2962,subdivision(e),didnotapplytotheuse (#$ offorceagainstpropertyorinanimateobjectsabsentashowingthatthemannerin )$% whichtheoffensewascommittedinvolvedtheuseofforceorviolence,athreatof *%& theuseofviolence,orthecausationofseriousbodilyinjury.Q3.1[1݌+&'(#(# Ќ  "Q3("  Q342G/3  0    InPeoplev.Kortesmaki(2007)156Cal.App.4th922,DivisionSixoftheSecond  DistrictCourtofAppealconcludedthattheprisonersconvictionofpossessing  flammableorcombustiblematerialswithintenttosetfiretopropertydidamount  toaqualifyingprioroffensebecausetheactualcommissionoftheoffense  involvedanimpliedthreattouseforceorviolenceagainstanotherperson.Q344݌ (#(# Ќ   I.0  90DayTreatmentRegimen th$7 (#(# AccordingtoPenalCodesection2962,subdivision(d)(1),aninitialMDOcommitment    maynotbeestablishedunless theprisonerhasbeenintreatmentfortheseveremental   disorderfor90daysormorewithintheyearpriortohisorherparolereleaseday.   "Q3)"  Q382G/3  0    InPeoplev.Martin(2005)127Cal.App.4th970,thedefendanthadreceived   treatmentforseveralmonthswhileinthecountyjailbeforehiscriminaltrial.   Afterconviction,hewassentencedtoastateprisontermbutreceivedlessthan90  daystreatmentwhileinthestatescustodybeforeanMDOpetitionwasfiled.  Nevertheless,DivisionSixoftheSecondDistrictCourtofAppealconcludedthata  prisonerspretrialinpatienttreatmentatthecountyjailcountedtowardthe90day  treatmentcriterionnecessaryforanMDOcommitment.Q389݌(#(# Ќ   J.0  Hearsay th.<(#(# "Q3*"  Q3<2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Martin(2005)127Cal.App.4th970,theprosecutionprovedtheprior  qualifyingoffenseelementinparticular,theforceorviolencecriterionbyan  expertwitnessreferencetothedescriptionoftheoffensecontainedinthe  probationreport.Findingnoerror,DivisionSixoftheSecondDistrictCourtof  Appealnotedthatalthoughaprobationreportisitselfhearsayandisnot  admissible,anexpertwitnessmayrelyonreliablehearsaymaterialsinformulating   anopinion.Therefore,theCourtofAppealconcludedthataqualifiedmental ! healthprofessionalmayrenderanopinionontheforceorviolencecriterionand " mayrelyontheprobationreportfromtheunderlyingcaseinformulatingthat # opinion.Q3<<݌$ (#(# Ќ  "Q3+"  Q3@2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Dodd(2005)133Cal.App.4th1564,severalexpertwitnessesreliedon &!" aparolereportthattheprisonermolestedayounggirl,andalloftheexperts '"# consideredthisincidentessentialtotheir_pedophilia_Ԁdiagnoses.DivisionSixofthe (#$ SecondDistrictCourtofAppealreiteratedthelegalprinciplesdiscussedinMartin, )$% supra,butfoundthereferencetothemolestationcontainedintheparolereportin *%& thiscaseamountedtounreliablehearsay.TheCourtofAppealconcludedthatthe +&' briefandconjecturalreferencetothemolestationintheparolereportfailedto  establishtheoccurrenceoftheincidentwithsufficientreliabilitytobeconsidered  bytheexpertsinformingtheiropinions.Asaresult,thetrialcourtabusedits  _discretion_Ԁinrulingthattheexpertscouldconsiderthatincidentinformingtheir  opinions.Withoutconsiderationoftheincidentmentionedintheparolereport,  therewasnosubstantialevidencetosupportthefindingthattheprisonersuffered   from_pedophilia_.Q3@A݌ (#(# Ќ   K.0  UseofPhysicalRestraintsDuringTrial thF (#(# "Q3,"  Q3`G2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Fisher(2006)136Cal.App.4th76,DivisionSixoftheSecondDistrict   CourtofAppealheldthattherulesattendanttoshacklinginacriminalproceeding   applytoMDOproceedings.Onthefactsofthiscase,however,theCourtof   Appealconcludedthat(1)theMDOforfeitedhisappellatechallengebyfailingto   objectinthetrialcourtand(2)theuseofrestraintswasjustifiedbythetrialcourts   findingthattheMDOposedanescaperisk.Q3`GG݌(#(# Ќ   L.0  SelfRepresentation thRJ(#(# "Q3-"  Q3J2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Hannibal(2006)143Cal.App.4th1087,DivisionSixoftheSecond  DistrictCourtofAppealheldthat_MDOs_Ԁdonothaveaconstitutionalrightto  representthemselvesbecauseofthecivilnatureoftheproceedings.TheCourtof  Appealalsoconcludedthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenying  theMDOhisstatutoryrighttorepresenthimselfbecausehisrequestwasnot  unequivocalandhefailedtofullyappreciatethecomplexityofthelegalissuesin  hiscase.Q3JJ݌(#(# Ќ   M.0  PrivilegeAgainstSelfIncrimination thM(#(# "Q3."  Q3qN2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Lopez(2006)137Cal.App.4th1099,DivisionTwooftheFourth ! DistrictCourtofAppealheldthatthefederalconstitutionalprivilegeagainstself " incriminationapplicabletocriminaltrialdidnotapplytoMDOproceedings, # whicharecivilinnature.Inreachingthisconclusion,theCourtofAppeal $  expresslydisagreedwithPeoplev.Haynie(2004)116Cal.App.4th1224,1230 % ! [findingsucharightinproceedingstoextendinsanity_acquittee_Ԁcommitments]and &!" InreLuisC.(2004)116Cal.App.4th1397,1403[findingsucharightinjuvenile '"# extendedcommitmentproceedings].Findingnorightnottotestifyunderthose (#$ commitmentschemes,theCourtofAppealthenconcludedthatdenyingtherightto )$% _MDOs_Ԁwouldnotviolateequalprotectionprinciples.Q3qNN݌*%&(#(# Ќ   +&'   N.0  PleaBargains thDS(#(# "Q3/"  Q3S2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Renfro(2005)125Cal.App.4th223,acriminaldefendantenteredinto  apleabargainwherebyhewouldpleadguiltywiththeunderstandingthatthe  ensuingconvictioncouldnotlaterbeusedasapriorqualifyingoffensein  subsequentMDOproceedings.Nevertheless,thatconvictionwasinfactusedto   establishthepriorqualifyingoffensecriterionatafutureMDOtrial,afterwhich   theprisonerwascommittedasanMDO.DivisionSixoftheSecondDistrictCourt   ofAppealaffirmedtheMDOcommitment,holdingthattheprovisioninthe   prisonerspleabargainpreventingtheuseofhisconvictionasthequalifying    offenseforcommitmentasanMDOwasnotapropersubjectforapleaagreement   andmaynotbeenforcedbyspecificperformance.ApplicationoftheMDOlawis   notadiscretionaryelementofsentencingthattheprosecutionorthetrialcourtmay   includeinanegotiatedpleatocriminalcharges.Q3SS݌ (#(# Ќ      III.0  NOTGUILTYBYREASONOFINSANITY(_NGI_)COMMITMENT onX(#(#   A.0  UntimelyFiledExtendedCommitmentPetitions  onY(#(#    `     h Anindividualfoundnotguiltybyreasonofinsanityofafelonymaynotbecommittedto  astatehospitalforaperiodoftimeanygreaterthan thelongesttermofimprisonment   whichcouldhavebeenimposedfortheoffenseoroffensesforwhichthepersonwas   convicted.(Pen.Code,1026.5,_subd_.(a)(1).)However,thepersonscommitmentmay   beextendedforanadditionaltwoyearsiftheindividual byreasonofamentaldisease,   defect,ordisorderrepresentsasubstantialdangerofphysicalharmtoothers.(Pen.    Code,1026.5,_subds_.(b)(1)&(b)(8).)   Ѐ   PenalCodesection1026.5,subdivision(b),setsforthadetailedsetofdeadlinesfor   extendinganinsanity_acquittee_scommitmentbeyondthemaximumterm.Ifthedistrict   attorneyelectstofileanpetitionextendedcommitmentpetition,itmustbefiled nolater   than90daysbeforetheexpirationoftheoriginalcommitmentunlessgoodcauseis  shown.(Pen.Code,1026.5,_subd_.(b)(2).)Inaddition,trialonthepetitionmust   commencenolaterthan30calendardayspriortothetimethepersonwouldotherwise  havebeenreleased,unlessthetimeiswaivedbythepersonorunlessgoodcauseis  shown.(Pen.Code,1026.5,_subd_.(b)(4).)  Despitetheinclusionofthesedeadlines, [_t]he_ԀtimelimitssetforthinPenalCode  section1026.5,bythestatutesownterms, arenotjurisdictional.(Pen.Code,1026.5,  _subd_.(a)(2).)Nevertheless,thefactthatastatutorydeadlineisdirectorydoesnotleave  theproposedcommitteewithoutremedywhenthegovernmentfailstocomplywithit.   Althoughthetimerequirementsofsection1026.5arenotjurisdictional,considerations  ofdueprocessrequireaninquiryintowhetherthedefendantwasharmedbytheviolation  ofthestatutorytimerequirements.(InreJohns(1981)119Cal.App.3d577,581.)  Courtspresentedwithadueprocesschallengetodirectorystatutorydeadlineviolations ! shouldconduct abalancingofanyprejudicialeffectofthedelayagainstthejustification " forthedelay._(Ibid.)_ԀInordertogaindismissalofthepetitionondueprocessgrounds, #  itisincumbentuponthedefendanttoshowcircumstancesofactualprejudice.(Ibid.) $  Thequestionofhowtomeasureactualprejudiceinthecaseofanuntimelyfiled_NGI_ &!" extendedcommitmentpetitionhasrecentlybeenthesubjectoftwoconflictingpublished '"# opinionsandiscurrentlypendingbeforetheCaliforniaSupremeCourtinPeoplev.Price (#$ (S151207). )$% "Q30"  Q3h2G/3  0    InPeoplev.Mitchell(2005)127Cal.App.4th936,theprosecutorfiledan_NGI_ +&' extendedcommitmentpetition76dayslate,andtheinsanity_acquittee_Ԁwasnot  broughtbeforethetrialcourtuntil9daysbeforehisstatutoryreleasedate.The  trialcourtdeniedtheproposedcommitteesdismissalmotionandgranteda  numberofcontinuancessothathecouldprepareadefense.Approximatelysix  monthsaftertheexpirationoftheinsanity_acquittee_smaximumtermof  commitment,followingabenchtrial,thetrialcourtissuedanorderextendinghis   commitmentforanadditionaltwoyears.DivisionThreeoftheFirstDistrictCourt   ofAppealheldthattheinsanity_acquittee_sdueprocessrightswerenotviolatedby   theuntimelyfiledextendedcommitmentpetitionandaffirmedthedenialofhis   dismissalmotion.Mitchellconcludedthattheinsanity_acquittee_Ԁwasnot denieda   fairhearingorgiveninsufficientopportunitytoprepareforthetrialwhich   ultimatelyproducedthecommitmentordernowonappeal.TheCourtofAppeal   refusedtofindactualprejudiceinthefactthattheinsanity_acquittee_Ԁcouldnothave   receivedafairtrialhaditbeenheldpriortotheexpirationofhismaximumtermof   commitment.Q3h