San Francisco Criminal Lawyer BlogDue process violation in denying assistance of experts at contested suitability hearing for Sexually Violent Predator (SVP)
Price v. Superior Court of Butte County (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 23, 2024, No. C100920) 2024 WL 4553015, at *1–4
Summary: In 2006, Price was admitted to the State Department of State Hospitals as a sexually violent predator. In 2022, the superior court found that Price was suitable for conditional release. Later, before placing Price in the community, the superior court reconsidered its order granting Price’s petition for conditional release, held a new hearing, and found him unsuitable.
Price argues that the superior court erred in denying him the assistance of experts in defending his suitability at the contested hearing. Price also contends that the superior court erred in subsequently finding him unsuitable for conditional release, because the ruling was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in finding Price unsuitable for conditional release and issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order.
The Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) “allows for the involuntary [civil] commitment of certain convicted sex offenders, whose diagnosed mental disorders make them likely to reoffend if released at the end of their prison terms.” A person can only be civilly committed if, after a trial, a judge or a unanimous jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt the person is a sexually violent predator (SVP). If the person is found to be an SVP, the court orders them committed to the State Department of State Hospitals (DSH) “for an indefinite term … for appropriate treatment and confinement in a secure facility.” (§ 6604.)
The SVPA was not designed to be punitive but “designed ‘ “to provide ‘treatment’ to mentally disordered individuals who cannot control sexually violent criminal behavior” ’ and to keep them confined until they no longer pose a threat to the public.” The SVPA is designed to ensure a committed person does not remain confined any longer than he or she qualifies as a sexually violent predator and provides means for that individual to obtain review of his or her mental condition to determine if civil confinement is still necessary. One of two ways such review may be had is by petition for conditional release … under section 6608.
Conditional release proceedings can be initiated by either DSH or the committed person. DSH can initiate release proceedings if it “determines that the person’s diagnosed mental disorder has so changed that the person is not likely to commit acts of predatory sexual violence while under supervision and treatment in the community.” (§ 6607, subd. (a).) The committed person can petition the court for conditional release after one year of commitment. (See § 6608, subds. (a), (c), (f).)
Where, as here, DSH authorizes the petition for conditional release, the SVP is presumptively entitled to conditional release and the state bears the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a conditional release is not appropriate. During the hearing, the committed person is entitled to the assistance of counsel and the appointment of experts, and the state is entitled to have the committed person evaluated by its own experts.
Facts
On October 7, 2022, DSH and Liberty Healthcare CONREP (Liberty) stated that Price was suitable for conditional release pursuant to section 6608. That same day, the superior court found Price suitable for conditional release. Securing a suitable residential placement for Price was not accomplished. On July 4, 2023, Liberty submitted a housing status report describing its ongoing placement search for Price. The report also indicated that since Price was granted conditional release in October 2022, his behaviors had concerned Liberty, leading to doubts as to his readiness for conditional release, warranting further assessment.
On July 6, 2023, the superior court held a scheduled continuation of the placement hearing. The court noted it had read and considered the July 4 report submitted by Liberty. Based on the report, the court found Price was not to be released “for reasons stated in this report,” found good cause to continue the placement hearing, and granted the request for a six-month continuance so that Liberty and DSH could “further review Mr. Price’s readiness and to allow him the opportunity for further treatment to address the concerns that are stated in this report.”
On July 13, 2023, Price filed in the superior court a request that, “[s]ince Liberty [had] put [his] mental health into question,” the court order “two unbiased [DSH] full evaluations to establish [his] current condition for supervised outpatient community release under W&I 6608.”
On April 22, 2024, counsel filed the instant petition for writ of mandate on behalf of Price. We issued an order to show cause.
Reconsideration of the Order Granting Conditional Release
The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the superior court’s finding of unsuitability for conditional release, made upon reconsideration of a prior grant of suitability, was procedurally flawed. that Price is entitled to a new hearing in which the court reconsiders his petition for conditional release. The Court reviews statutory interpretation and implementation de novo.
Once the superior court decided to hold a new hearing on Price’s suitability for release, we conclude the procedural protections within section 6608, subdivision (g) applied, and Price should have been afforded the right to the appointment of experts as he had requested. The statute governing hearings on conditional release expressly provides that a petitioner is entitled to the assistance of counsel and the appointment of experts. The superior court’s noncompliance with the statutory provisions denied Price due process and the finding of unsuitability cannot stand. As the parties acknowledge, Price is entitled to a new hearing on this basis.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.