People v. Hicks CA2/6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 24, 2024B333994California715 words

Opinion

Opinion

DISCUSSION

Hicks argues that he has the right to the appointment of an expert to participate in his annual SVP examination. He relies upon People v. McCloud (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 1, 15-16, that an SVP may request an expert pursuant to section 6604.9, subdivision (a). Section 6604.9, subdivision (a) provides for an annual examination of an SVP’s mental condition and states: “A person found to be a sexually violent predator and committed to the custody of the State Department of State Hospitals shall have a

2 current examination of his or her mental condition made at least once every year. The report shall be in the form of a declaration and shall be prepared by a professionally qualified person. The person may retain or, if he or she is indigent and so requests, the court may appoint, a qualified expert or professional person to examine him or her, and the expert or professional person shall have access to all records concerning the person.” The appointment of an expert at this stage of the SVP proceedings falls within the trial court’s discretion. In People v. Hardacre, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1398, we rejected the contention that an SVP is entitled to the appointment of an…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.