Wright v. Superior Court CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Jan 14, 2014 No. G045203Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied the petition for writ of mandate/prohibition, holding that an SVPA commitment petition need not be dismissed solely because initial evaluations used an invalid assessment protocol, provided the defendant fails to show the error was material.

Issues

Whether a commitment petition under the Sexually Violent Predator Act must be dismissed if supported by evaluations conducted under an invalid assessment protocol.
Whether the petitioner demonstrated that the use of an invalid assessment protocol created a material error in his commitment proceedings.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“an alleged sexually violent predator (SVP) must show that any fault that did occur under the assessment protocol created a material error.”

“The Supreme Court concluded a court is not required to dismiss commitment proceedings under the SVPA if the OAL determines that the initial evaluations supporting the petition were conducted under an assessment protocol that did not comply”

Filed 1/14/14 Wright v. Superior Court CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JAMES WRIGHT,

Petitioner,

v. G045203

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE (Super. Ct. No. M10012) COUNTY, OPINION Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate/prohibition to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard M. King, Judge. Petition denied. Deborah A. Kwast and Frank Ospino, Public Defenders, Jean Wilkinson, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Denise Gragg and Mark S. Brown, Assistant Public Defenders, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent. Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney, and Elizabeth Molfetta, Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in Interest. * * * INTRODUCTION James Wright is the subject of a commitment petition filed pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act, Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 et seq. 1 (SVPA). In our prior opinion, Wright v. Superior Court (Mar. 28, 2012, G045203) (nonpub. opn), review granted June 13, 2012, S202320, we denied Wright’s petition for writ of mandate/prohibition, which sought a writ directing the respondent court to grant his plea in abatement and dismiss the commitment petition. The California Supreme Court granted review of our opinion. After issuing its decision in Reilly v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 641 (Reilly), the Supreme Court transferred this matter to us for reconsideration in light of that decision. No party filed a supplemental brief pursuant to rule 8.200(b)(1) of the California Rules of Court. As the Supreme Court directed, we have reconsidered this matter in light of Reilly and again deny Wright’s petition for writ of mandate/prohibition. Our decision is without prejudice to Wright challenging the probable cause determination pursuant to Reilly, supra, 57 Cal.4th at pages 656-657, footnote 5, and without prejudice to Wright and the People obtaining further examinations and evaluations permitted by the SVPA.

Wright v. Superior Court CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JAMES WRIGHT,

THE PEOPLE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

FYBEL, J.

RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.

BEDSWORTH, J.

AI Brief