Gray

Gray v. Superior Court

Good Law
115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 477·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 355·2002 Daily Journal DAR 565·95 Cal. App. 4th 322·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 429
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 16, 2002E029464California3,396 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKINSTER, J.

Petitioner Samuel Lee Gray (Gray) is the respondent below in a proceeding brought under what is commonly known as the Sexually Violent Predators Act (Act). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) In this proceeding, he seeks to compel dismissal of the proceedings because recent psychological evaluations reflect a difference of expert opinion on whether he meets the statutory criteria for a “sexually violent predator,” and is therefore subject to involuntary commitment under the Act.

A petition for commitment as a sexually violent offender was filed against Gray by the San Bernardino County District Attorney on October 11, 1996. It was supported by the expert evaluations of Drs. Charles Jackson and Dean Haddock, both of whom concluded that Gray met the criteria set out in section 6601, subdivision (d).

The matter then languished until 1999. After various trial court proceedings, Gray filed a petition with this court seeking dismissal. In that petition, he argued that three new evaluations had been conducted (by Drs. Kania, Owen, and Matosich), two of which—those by Kania and Owen—expressed the opinion that he did not meet the criteria. At that point, a probable cause…

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.