Orozco

I concur in the majority opinion in that Orozco, by his conduct, waived the issue of delay in bringing the matter to trial. However, I write separately to set forth my concerns with respect to the statutory scheme as it relates to recommitment petitions.

Welfare and Institutions Code section 6602 provides “[i]f the judge determines that there is probable cause, the judge . . . shall order that a trial be *181 conducted.” (Italics added.) 1 Unfortunately, the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVP Act or the Act) (§ 6600 et seq.) does not specify a time frame either for conducting the probable cause hearing on a recommitment petition or for the trial on the recommitment petition. (People v. Superior Court (Ramirez) (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1389 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 402 ].) Further, the “procedure for extending an SVP’s commitment has not been widely considered by the courts.” (Cooley v. Superior Court (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 785, 787 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 724 ].)

However, certain principles are self-evident. It is the People, as the party bringing the recommitment petition, who have the burden to move the case forward. The trial court, in turn, upon determining “that there is probable…

Petitioner Hernan Orozco (Orozco) seeks a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying his motion to dismiss the People’s petitions to recommit him pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVP Act or the Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) and to enter instead an order granting the motion for dismissal and ordering his release from custody.

The essential issue presented is whether there is a jurisdictional requirement under the Act that a recommitment order be obtained before the expiration of the previous term.

The statutory scheme requires that the recommitment petition be filed before the expiration of the prior term, but there is no requirement that the recommitment order be obtained before the term expires. (People v. Superior Court (Ramirez) (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1389-1391 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 402 ].) Therefore, we deny Orozco’s petition insofar as it seeks dismissal of the recommitment proceedings. However, we direct the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate directing respondent superior court to set the first recommitment petition for trial forthwith, and to proceed expeditiously with a probable cause hearing on the…

Hernan Orozco, in pro. per.

Jean F. Matulis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Steve Cooley, District Attorney, George M. Palmer, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Phyllis C. Asayama, Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in Interest.

Certiorari Denied November 29, 2004. See 125 S.Ct. 617

ALDRICH, J.

Petition Hernan Orozco (Orozco) seeks a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying his motion to dismiss the People's petitions to recommit him pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVP Act or the Act) (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 6600 et seq.) and to enter instead an order granting the motion for dismissal and ordering his release from custody. [1]

The essential issue presented is whether there is a jurisdictional requirement under the Act that a recommitment order be obtained before the expiration of the previous term.

The statutory scheme requires that the recommitment petition be filed before the expiration of the prior term, but there is no requirement that the recommitment order be obtained before the term expires. ( People v. Superior Court ( Ramirez ) (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1384,…