Quintero v. Superior Court CA4/3

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

AGUSTINE QUINTERO,

Petitioner,

v. G045200

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE (Super. Ct. No. M10805) 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 Agustine Quintero 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, Quintero v. Superior Court (Mar. 28, 2012, G045200) (nonpub. opn.), review granted June 27, 2012, S202358, we denied Quintero’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 Quintero’s petition for writ of mandate/prohibition. Our decision is without prejudice to Quintero challenging the probable cause determination pursuant to Reilly, supra, 57 Cal.4th at pages 656-657, footnote 5, and without prejudice to Quintero and the People obtaining further examinations and evaluations permitted by the SVPA. ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION AND THE RETURN In February 2006, the Orange County District Attorney filed a petition for commitment as a sexually violent predator (the SVPA Petition), alleging Quintero was a sexually violent predator under the SVPA. The SVPA Petition was based on an