Opinion ID: 1038646
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: SVPA Statutory Framework

Text: Under the SVPA, the state can civilly commit individuals found to be SVPs after they conclude their prison terms. (See People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1186-1187.) Section 6600, subdivision (a)(1) defines the SVP as ―a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.‖ The Welfare and Institutions Code outlines the procedure for determining whether a person is an SVP. (§ 6600 et seq.) Under section 6601, whenever the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) determines that a person may be an SVP, the secretary refers that person to the Department and the Board of Parole Hearings for an initial screening. (§ 6601, subds. (a) (1), (b).) In screening, the Department considers ―whether the person has committed a sexually violent predatory offense‖ and reviews ―the person‘s social, criminal, and institutional history.‖ (Id., subd. (b).) If the Department determines that the individual is likely to be an SVP, it refers him or her to the State Department of State Hospitals (SDSH; formerly the Department of Mental Health (former DMH)) for a ―full evaluation.‖ (Ibid.) Two mental health experts conduct the full evaluation. (Ibid.) The director of the SDSH (Director) appoints these experts, who must be either psychologists or psychiatrists. (§ 6601, subd. (d).) Each expert ―shall evaluate the person in accordance with a standardized assessment protocol . . . to determine whether the person is a sexually violent predator as defined in [section 6600]. The 2 standardized assessment protocol shall require assessment of diagnosable mental disorders, as well as various factors known to be associated with the risk of reoffense among sex offenders,‖ including ―criminal and psychosexual history, type, degree, and duration of sexual deviance, and severity of mental disorder.‖ (§ 6601, subd. (c).) 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 forwards a request that a petition for commitment be filed as specified under section 6601, subdivision (i). However, if the evaluators disagree on the individual‘s SVP status, the Director ―shall arrange for further examination of the person by two independent professionals . . . .‖ (§ 6601, subd. (e).) At this stage, the 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).‖ (§ 6601, subd. (f).) Read together, subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of section 6601 amount to an unambiguous statutory prefiling requirement ―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.‖ (Ghilotti, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 909.) Where this initial requirement is not met, the commitment may not proceed. (Id. at p. 910.) The SVPA also provides for evaluations to be updated or replaced after a commitment petition has been filed. (§ 6603, subd. (c).) Section 6603, subdivision (c) was enacted to clarify the right of the attorney seeking commitment to obtain up-to-date evaluations, in light of the fact that commitment under the SVPA is based on a ―current mental disorder.‖ (Albertson v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 796, 802; see id. at pp. 803-804.) If an updated or 3 replacement evaluation results in a split of opinion as to whether the individual meets the criteria for commitment, the SDSH must obtain two additional evaluations in accordance with subdivision (f) of section 6601. (§ 6603, subd. (c).) However, although initial evaluations conducted under section 6601 must agree, a lack of concurrence between updated or replacement evaluations does not require dismissal of the petition. (Gray v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 322, 328 (Gray).) Rather, the updated evaluations‘ primary purpose is evidentiary or informational. (Ibid.) Mandatory dismissal is not required where one or both of the later evaluators conclude the individual does not meet the criteria for commitment. (Ibid.) After a petition for commitment has been filed in the superior court, and once replacement evaluations have been completed, a new round of proceedings ensues. ―The superior court first holds a hearing to determine whether there is ‗probable cause‘ to believe that the person named in the petition is likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior upon release. [Citations.] The alleged predator is entitled to the assistance of counsel at this hearing. If no probable cause is found, the petition is dismissed. However, if the court finds probable cause within the meaning of this section, the court orders a trial to determine whether the person is an SVP under section 6600.‖ (Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1146, fn. omitted.) Though civil in nature, this trial contains a number of procedural safeguards commonly associated with criminal trials, including the alleged SVP‘s right to a jury trial (§ 6603, subd. (a)), to assistance of counsel (ibid.), and to a unanimous jury finding that he or she is an SVP beyond a reasonable doubt before he or she may be committed. (§ 6604.) B. The Office of Administrative Law Determination In order to ensure alleged SVPs are evaluated properly under section 6601, the SDSH publishes a handbook and standardized assessment protocol for 4 evaluators to use. In 2008, the Office of Administrative Law received a petition alleging that 10 provisions in the SDSH‘s Clinical Evaluator Handbook and Standardized Assessment Protocol (Aug. 2007) (Handbook and Assessment Protocol) had not been adopted according to California‘s Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The APA, beginning at Government Code section 11340, requires that administrative agency guidelines be adopted according to specific procedures in order to qualify as ―regulation[s].‖ (Gov. Code, § 11340.5, subds. (a) & (b).) The APA defines regulations as ―every rule, regulation, order, or standard of general application . . . adopted by any state agency to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by it, or to govern its procedure.‖ (Gov. Code, § 11342.600.) As we have explained, ―One purpose of the APA is to ensure that those persons or entities whom a regulation will affect have a voice in its creation [citation], as well as notice of the law‘s requirements so that they can conform their conduct accordingly [citation]. The Legislature wisely perceived that the party subject to regulation is often in the best position, and has the greatest incentive, to inform the agency about possible unintended consequences of a proposed regulation. Moreover, public participation in the regulatory process directs the attention of agency policymakers to the public they serve, thus providing some security against bureaucratic tyranny [citation].‖ (Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557, 568–569; see also Voss v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 900, 908–909.) The APA procedure is designed to ensure reliability in the regulatory process. Therefore, if a government agency acts in reliance on an invalid regulation under the APA, its action is also generally considered invalid if objection to the regulation has been timely raised. (See Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Department of Health Services (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1468-1471 [agency action to delist an AIDS drug rescinded where agency based action on ―underground 5 regulation‖].) Indeed, any regulation not properly adopted under the APA is considered invalid. (Patterson Flying Service v. Department of Pesticide Regulation (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 411, 429; see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 250.) In 2008, when the Office of Administrative Law determined that provisions of the 2007 Handbook and Assessment Protocol met the definition of a regulation and should have been adopted in accordance with the APA, several SVPA petitions were still either awaiting a probable cause hearing, or pending trial following the probable cause hearing, as in Reilly‘s case. (Off. of Administrative Law, 2008 OAL Determination No. 19 (Aug. 15, 2008) p. 3 (OAL Determination).) Many of those individuals, including Reilly, had received some evaluations under the 2007 assessment protocol. The OAL Determination clarified that its ruling concerned only whether the 2007 assessment protocol constituted a regulation under Government Code section 11342.600 because ―[n]othing in this analysis evaluates the advisability or the wisdom of the underlying action or enactment.‖ (OAL Determination, at p. 1.) The Office of Administrative Law recognized that it ―has neither the legal authority nor the technical expertise to evaluate the underlying policy issues involved.‖ (Ibid.) In other words, its conclusions addressed only the procedural validity of the 2007 assessment protocol; it did not address the protocol‘s substantive validity. We now discuss how the invalid 2007 assessment protocol affected Reilly‘s pending SVPA trial.