The People v. Smith

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 28, 2013A135760California1,715 words

Opinion

Opinion

Simons, J.

DISCUSSION

“Because the SVPA is designed to ensure a committed person does not remain confined any longer than he or she qualifies as [an SVP], it provides means for that individual to obtain review of his or her mental condition to determine if civil confinement is still necessary. [Citation.]” (People v. Collins (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 340, 346 (Collins).) A person committed as a sexually violent predator may petition for conditional release or an unconditional discharge any time after one year of commitment, notwithstanding the lack of recommendation or concurrence by the Director of Mental Health. (§ 6608, subds. (a) & (c); Collins, at p. 346; People v. Reynolds (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1406-1407 (Reynolds).) “Upon receipt of such a petition without the concurrence of the director, the court „shall endeavor whenever possible to review the petition and determine if it is based upon frivolous grounds and, if so, shall deny the petition without a hearing.‟ (§ 6608, subd. (a).) If the petition is not found to be frivolous, the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the person committed would be a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he…

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.