Reynolds

People v. Reynolds

Good Law
105 Cal. Rptr. 3d 560·181 Cal. App. 4th 1402·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 166
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 10, 2010E047192California3,104 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ramirez, J.

—Defendant, Steven Arthur Reynolds, a sexually violent predator (SVP) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.), filed a petition for unconditional release (§ 6608), pro se, after he had been recommitted as an SVP, and while that recommitment was on appeal. The petition alleged only that (a) it has been nearly four years since his original commitment, and (b) prior to his recent recommitment proceeding, he was ready to go to trial with an expert available to testify on his behalf. Counsel was appointed. The People made a motion to dismiss the petition, and, at the hearing on the petition, defense counsel acknowledged there were no changed circumstances. The court dismissed defendant’s petition without prejudice to refile when defendant’s circumstances change.

On appeal, defendant argues (1) the trial court abused its discretion by failing to review defendant’s petition prior to dismissing it; (2) the petition was not frivolous; and (3) defendant’s counsel provided ineffective assistance by “abandoning” defendant in conceding the petition lacked merit. We affirm.

Background

. At defendant’s request, we have taken judicial notice of defendant’s prior appeal, E044582.…

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.