People v. Hicks CA2/6

Filed 7/24/24 P. v. Hicks CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B333994 (Super. Ct. No. F328947) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

JAMES RILEY HICKS,

Defendant and Appellant.

James Riley Hicks appeals an order denying his motion for the appointment of an expert in his annual examination as a sexually violent predator (SVP). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.)1 We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hicks’s request for appointment of a qualified expert, and affirm. (§ 6604.9, subd. (a); People v. Hardacre (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396, 1398 [trial court has

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and

Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.

discretion to appoint expert for SVP for initial, probable cause hearing].) FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 1985 and 1994, Hicks was convicted of committing lewd acts with children. (Pen. Code, § 288, subds. (a) & (c).) Following his service of a prison term, he was committed as an SVP. (People v. Hicks (Jan. 14, 2008, B193533) [nonpub. opn.].) The district attorney has since petitioned to extend Hicks’s SVP commitment. On July 31, 2023, Hicks moved for the appointment of counsel and an expert or professional witness pursuant to section 6604.9, subdivision (a). Hicks did not support his motion with a particularized showing that he could benefit from the appointment of an expert, i.e., that there was probable cause to believe his mental condition had changed or that he no longer would be a danger to others. On October 30, 2023, the trial court summarily denied Hicks’s motion. Hicks appeals and contends that the trial court erred by denying him an expert witness to participate in his annual examination. DISCUSSION Hicks argues that he has the right to the appointment of an expert to participate in his annual SVP examination. He relies upon People v. McCloud (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 1, 15-16, that an SVP may request an expert pursuant to section 6604.9, subdivision (a). Section 6604.9, subdivision (a) provides for an annual examination of an SVP’s mental condition and states: “A person found to be a sexually violent predator and committed to the custody of the State Department of State Hospitals shall have a