Opinion ID: 2543849
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: May an SVPA recommitment petition be filed without the concurrence of two designated evaluators, as set forth in section 6601, subdivision (d), or two independent evaluators, as set forth in section 6601, subdivisions (e) and (f)?

Text: As below, the People argue that the Director may request the filing of a petition for commitment or recommitment even if the evaluations performed under subdivisions (c) through (f) of section 6601 do not produce the concurrence of two designated evaluators under subdivision (d), or of two independent professionals under subdivisions (e) and (f), that the person meets the criteria for commitment. The People point to subdivision (h) of section 6601, which states that the Director shall request such a petition [i]f the ... Department ... determines that the person is a sexually violent predator as defined in this article.... (Italics added.) In the People's view, subdivision (h) operates independently of subdivisions (c) through (f), and makes such a request mandatory if, despite the evaluators' contrary conclusions, the Director himself, upon reviewing the evidence, reaches a determin[ation] that the person is, or remains, an SVP. We agree with the superior court and the Court of Appeal that this is not a plausible reading of the statute. `To determine legislative intent, a court begins with the words of the statute, because they generally provide the most reliable indicator of legislative intent.' [Citation.] If it is clear and unambiguous our inquiry ends. There is no need for judicial construction and a court may not indulge in it. [Citation.] `If there is no ambiguity in the language, we presume the Legislature meant what it said and the plain meaning of the statute governs.' [Citation.] ( Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1036, 1047, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 828, 968 P.2d 539.) Here, the plain language of section 6601 refutes the People's argument. Subdivisions (b) through (g) of section 6601 set forth the procedures, including the concurrence of two mental health evaluators, by which the Department must make the determin[ation] to which subdivision (h) refers. Subdivision (h), in turn, refers to a determin[ation] made by resort to those procedures, not in disregard of them. As we have seen, subdivision (b) of section 6601 provides that when a person may be eligible for commitment or recommitment as an SVP, the person shall undergo a full evaluation  by the Department. (Italics added.) Under subdivision (c) of section 6601, the Department shall evaluate the person (italics added) by means of a standardized assessment protocol that considers diagnosable mental disorders and various factors known to bear upon a sex offender's risk of reoffense. Under subdivision (d) of section 6601, the person shall be evaluated  (italics added) by two practicing psychologists or psychiatrists designated by the Director, and if both evaluators agree that the person has a diagnosed mental disorder so that he or she is likely to engage in acts of sexual violence without appropriate treatment and custody, the Director shall forward a petition request to the proper county. (Italics added.) However, under subdivision (e) of section 6601, if the professionals performing the evaluation pursuant to subdivision (d) are split on whether the person meets the criteria for commitment or recommitment, the Director ... shall arrange for further examination of the person by two independent professionals  (italics added) who meet qualifications set forth in section 6601, subdivision (g). Under subdivision (f) of section 6601, a petition  shall only be filed if both independent professionals who evaluate the person pursuant to subdivision (e) concur that the person meets the criteria for commitment specified in subdivision (d). (Italics added.) Finally, under subdivision (h) of section 6601, the Director shall forward a petition request to the appropriate county [i]f the ... Department ... determines that the person is a sexually violent predator as defined in this article....  Copies of the evaluation reports and any other supporting documents shall be made available to the county's attorney. (Ibid., italics added.) The clear import of this scheme is that the Department's determination] under section 6601, subdivision (h), is governed by the evaluation procedure described at length in subdivisions (c) through (g) of the same section. When subdivisions (c) through (h) of section 6601 are read together, they ascribe the Director's authority as follows: Before requesting a petition, the Director must designate two mental health professionals to evaluate the person. If these two evaluators agree that the person meets the criteria for commitment, the Director must request a petition. If, however, these first two evaluators do not agree on that issue, the Director must arrange a further examination by two independent professionals. If these independent professionals also do not concur that the person meets the criteria for commitment, the Director may not request the filing of a petition. The authorities uniformly support our conclusion. In Hubbart, supra, 19 Cal.4th 1138, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492, 969 P.2d 584, we said that [t]wo evaluators must agree that the inmate is mentally disordered and dangerous within the meaning of section 6600 in order for proceedings to go forward under the Act. (§ 6601, subd. (d).) ( Hubbart, supra, at p. 1146, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492, 969 P.2d 584; see also Albertson v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 796, 799, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 381, 23 P.3d 611.) The Courts of Appeal have so assumed, specifically applying the rule to extended commitments under the SVPA. ( People v. Superior Court (Gary) (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 207, 213-218, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 874; Peters v. Superior Court, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th 845, 848-851, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 350; Butler v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178-1182, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 468 (Butler) .) As the Butler court remarked, The Legislature specifically provided that the [Department] may not request a petition for commitment if only one of the two evaluators concludes that the person meets the criteria for commitment under the SVPA. (§ 6601, subd. (e).) This indicates that the Legislature felt it important for two professionals to concur in their evaluations of a potential SVP's mental condition before a petition for commitment could be filed. ( Butler, supra, at p. 1180, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 468.) A 2000 amendment to section 6604.1 added subdivision (b), making clear that the evaluation process set forth in subdivisions (c) to (i), inclusive, of section 6601 applies to petitions for recommitment for extended terms under the SVPA. At least one Court of Appeal has ruled that section 6604.1, subdivision (b), precludes the filing of a recommitment petition without the concurrence of two professional evaluators under section 6601. ( People v. Superior Court (Preciado) (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1127, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 159.) The People urge, however, that subdivisions (d) through (f) of section 6601 must be reconciled with subdivision (h), which requires the Department to request a petition if it determines that the person is a sexually violent predator. Indeed, the People suggest, the responsibility for a full evaluation of the person (§ 6601, subd. (b)), as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c) of section 6601, is not placed on the individual evaluators described in subdivisions (d) through (f), but on the Department as a distinct entity, and the evaluators conclusions do not negate the Department's independent duty to determine[], under subdivision (h), who is an appropriate candidate for commitment or recommitment. All subdivisions of section 6601 may be harmonized to this end, the People assert, by construing that section as follows: The Director must request a petition if the evaluators designated under subdivision (d) concur; he may do so if the independent evaluators appointed under subdivision (e) concur; but in any event, he must do so if he independently determines, under subdivision (h), that the person under examination is an SVP. However, the People's proposed construction ignores the express language of subdivisions (e) and (f) of section 6601. That language specifies that if the two original evaluators fail to agree the person should be committed or recommitted, the Director shall arrange for additional evaluations by two independent professionals (id., subd.(e)), and a petition shall only be filed if both independent professionals agree (id., subd.(f), italics added). Indeed, subdivision (h) of section 6601 itself makes clear that the determin[ation] described in subdivision (h) flows from the evaluation process. The subdivision provides that when, upon the Department's determin[ation], a petition request is forwarded, [c]opies of the evaluation reports ... shall be made available to the attorney for the petitioning county. Contrary to the People's assertion, this interpretation of the statutory scheme does not negate subdivision (h) of section 6601. Subdivision (h) importantly provides that once the Department does determine, by the process set forth in the preceding subdivisions, that the person meets the criteria for commitment or recommitment, the Director ... shall forward a request for a petition. (Italics added.) The People insist that the purpose of the Act, i.e., to protect the public from dangerously disordered sex offenders, is best served by allowing the Director independently to determine the current mental status of an offender, such as Ghilotti, who is already under the Director's treatment and custody. As the People observe, the Director, through consultation with the day-to-day treatment staff, may be better situated to assess the person's condition than outside evaluators. Be that as it may, we cannot contravene the plain statutory language. As the Butler court indicated, in view of the loss of liberty involved in an involuntary SVP commitment, the Legislature may have felt that the initial screening process should include the formal concurrence of two mental health professionals. (See Butler, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1180, 93 Cal. Rptr.2d 468.) [7] Accordingly we, like the courts below, conclude that a petition for commitment or recommitment may not be filed unless two evaluators, appointed under the procedures specified in section 6601, subdivisions (d) and (e), have concurred that the person currently meets the criteria for commitment under the SVPA.