California Court of Appeal

A petition for a writ of mandate challenging petitioner's commitment as a sexually violent predator, and the trial court's decision to receive in evidence at the probable cause hearing two evaluation reports prepared in 2011 by psychologists appointed to evaluate him is denied, where: 1) petitioner cannot show that any fault that did occur under the assessment protocol created a material error; 2) the evaluation reports received in evidence were based on new evaluations under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6601(c); 3) in conducting the evaluations and preparing the reports received in evidence, the evaluators properly followed the 2009 Standardized Assessment Protocol (SAP); 4) the 2009 SAP is a legitimate standardized assessment protocol as required by section 6601(c); and 5) the 2009 SAP is a valid and properly promulgated regulation.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/06/2013
• Published 12/06/2013

Judges

• FYBEL

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel