People v. McClinton CA4/3

DISCUSSION

We review a trial court’s denial of a SVP’s petition for conditional release for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Reynolds (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1408.) There are varying degrees of deference within the abuse of discretion standard of review. (Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711-712.) A “trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.” (Ibid., fns. omitted.) In the remainder of this discussion, we will: A) state general legal principles concerning SVP petitions for conditional release; B) review the relevant proceedings; and C) analyze the law as applied to the facts.

A. General Legal Principles Generally, a person committed as an SVP may periodically petition the trial court for conditional release. “Upon receipt of a first or subsequent petition from a committed person 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.” (§…