Reilly v. Superior Court CA4/3

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

KEVIN MICHAEL REILLY,

Petitioner,

v. G045118

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE (Super. Ct. No. M11860) 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 granted in part and denied in part. Deborah A. Kwast and Frank Ospino, Public Defenders, 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. * * [1]. Introduction Kevin Michael Reilly is the subject of a petition for commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 et seq. (SVPA). In Reilly v. Superior Court (Mar. 28, 2012, G045118) (nonpub. opn.), review granted June 13, 2012, S202280 (Reilly I), we granted Reilly’s petition for writ of mandate/prohibition and directed the respondent court to grant Reilly’s plea in abatement, in effect dismissing the SVPA commitment petition. In Reilly v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 641, 656-657 (Reilly II), the California Supreme Court reversed our judgment in Reilly I and concluded that Reilly must proceed to a trial on the SVPA commitment petition. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to us “for proceedings consistent with [its] opinion.” (Reilly II, supra, at p. 657; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.528(c).) 2. Postremand Issues The only issues remaining for our decision following Reilly II are (1) whether the respondent court erred by granting the district attorney’s motion to compel Reilly to undergo a mental examination by the district attorney’s retained mental health professional; and (2) whether the respondent court erred by granting the district attorney’s motion to allow that retained mental health professional access to Reilly’s state hospital records. In Reilly I, we concluded: “Because the SVPA Petition must be dismissed, Reilly cannot be compelled to undergo another mental evaluation. Evaluations by independent professionals under [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 6601, subdivision (e) are not authorized because the initial two post-Ronje [(In re Ronje (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 509, disapproved in Reilly II, supra, 57 Cal.4th 641)] evaluators concluded Reilly did not meet the criteria for commitment as a sexually