Rigby v. Superior Court CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Jan 14, 2014 No. G045614Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an SVPA commitment petition does not require dismissal due to the use of an invalid assessment protocol unless the petitioner demonstrates that the procedural error resulted in a material error in the evaluations.

Issues

Whether an SVPA commitment petition 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 caused a material error in his evaluations.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“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 with the OAL’s procedural requirements.”

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

“Absent a showing of material error, the next step is to conduct a probable cause hearing forthwith.”

Filed 1/14/14 Rigby 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ALAN RIGBY,

Petitioner,

v. G045614

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE (Super. Ct. Nos. M10354 & M11042) 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, James Patrick Marion, Judge. Petition denied. Frank Ospino, Public Defender, Jean Wilkinson, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Denise Gragg, Sharon Petrosino 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 In December 2003, Alan Rigby was adjudicated to be a sexually violent predator under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 6600 et seq. (SVPA). He is the subject of SVPA recommitment petitions filed in 2004 and 2006. In our prior opinion, Rigby v. Superior Court (Mar. 28, 2012, G045614) (nonpub. opn.), review granted June 27, 2012, S202314, we denied Rigby’s petition for writ of mandate/prohibition, which sought a writ directing the respondent court to grant his motion to dismiss the 2006 SVPA recommitment 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 Rigby’s petition for writ of mandate/prohibition. Our decision is without prejudice to Rigby and the People obtaining further examinations and evaluations permitted by the SVPA.

Rigby v. Superior Court CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ALAN RIGBY,

THE PEOPLE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

FYBEL, J.

RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.

BEDSWORTH, J.

AI Brief