Alvas

Following a trial by court, defendant was found to be mentally retarded and a danger to himself or others (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6500) and was involuntarily committed to the Stockton Developmental Center for one year.

On appeal defendant contends the judgment must be reversed because (1) the record fails to show an advisement and waiver of the right to a jury trial on the issues of dangerousness and retardation, and (2) section 6500 is unconstitutionally vague for failure to define “dangerousness” as it is used in that section.

Conceding that defendant’s first contention has merit and that reversal is therefore required, the People have not addressed defendant’s contention challenging the constitutionality of section 6500. The concession is appropriate, although not on the authority cited by the parties to this appeal.

The People and defendant each rely on O’Brien v. Superior Court (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 62 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 13 ] for the proposition that where a court trial results in the defendant’s commitment pursuant to section 6500 proceedings, reversal is required unless the record shows an advisement and waiver of the defendant’s right to a jury trial. Neither…