People v. Cheek
Decision Date | 21 June 2001 |
Docket Number | No. S083305.,S083305. |
Citation | 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 181,25 Cal.4th 894,24 P.3d 1204 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Michael Thomas CHEEK, Defendant and Appellant. |
Steven Fama, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Assistant Attorney General, Rene A. Chacon and Bridget A. Billeter, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This case concerns the annual review hearing afforded defendants committed under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 6600 et seq. (Act)).1
The Act provides for civil commitment for a renewable two-year term of criminal defendants who, after serving their prison term, are found to be "sexually violent predator[s]." (§ 6604.) Once so committed, a defendant is entitled to an annual review of his or her mental condition. (§ 6605.) Unless the defendant waives the right to petition for conditional release to a community treatment program (§ 6608), the superior court annually must conduct a "show cause hearing" to determine whether "probable cause exists to believe that the committed person's diagnosed mental disorder has so changed that he or she is not a danger to the health and safety of others and is not likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior if discharged." (§ 6605, subd. (c).) If the court finds probable cause, it orders a trial, by jury requested, to determine if the defendant should be discharged. (§ 6605, subds. (c)-(d).)
At issue here is the meaning of the phrase "show cause hearing" in section 6605. The People contend that this is nothing more than a "paper hearing," involving only the scrutiny of mental health reports and other pertinent documents. But the Court of Appeal, agreeing with defendant, held that the defendant has the right to call witnesses and to cross-examine the state's witnesses at the hearing. We granted review because of a conflict between that decision and the Court of Appeal's decision in People v. Herrera (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1149, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 531. We agree with the Court of Appeal's view here, and we affirm its interpretation of the Act.
In 1997, defendant Michael Thomas Cheek was found to be a sexually violent predator and was committed to the California Department of Mental Health for two years. In 1998 the department, as required by section 6605, subdivisions (a) and (b), examined defendant's mental condition and gave him written notice of his right to petition the court for conditional release under section 6608. The notice gave defendant two options: (1) to petition for conditional release to a community treatment program; or (2) to waive his right to so petition. Defendant did not check either box.
Because defendant did not affirmatively waive his right to petition for conditional release, the superior court was required to conduct a show cause hearing. (§ 6605, subd. (b).) The court denied defense counsel's request for appointment of an expert. Counsel further objected to the proceedings on the ground that the court would not give him an opportunity to cross-examine the author of the state's medical report or to present evidence on his client's behalf. The trial court did not comment on this objection. Ruling solely on the basis of the written reports, it found no change in defendant's mental condition and ordered defendant to remain in Atascadero State Hospital for the duration of the original two-year term of commitment.
Defendant's original two-year civil commitment under the Act expired on July 14, 1999, while his appeal was pending. The issue he raises, however, is one likely to recur while evading appellate review (see Thompson v. Department of Corrections (2001) 25 Cal.4th 117, 122, 105 Cal. Rptr.2d 46, 18 P.3d 1198; Alfredo A. v. Superior Court (1994) 6 Cal.4th 1212, 1219, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 623, 865 P.2d 56) and involves a matter of public interest (see Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 746-747, 29 Cal. Rptr.2d 804, 872 P.2d 143). The Court of Appeal therefore exercised its discretion to decide the issue for the guidance of future proceedings before dismissing the case as moot. We will do the same.
In Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act. In rejecting Hendricks's argument that the act was punitive, the high court observed that Kansas's provision for an annual review of the defendant's mental condition showed "that Kansas does not intend an individual committed pursuant to the Act to remain confined any longer than he suffers from a mental abnormality rendering him unable to control his dangerousness." (521 U.S. at p. 364, 117 S.Ct. 2072.)
The California Act is similarly "designed to ensure that the committed person does not `remain confined any longer than he suffers from a mental abnormality rendering him unable to control his dangerousness.' " (Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1177, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492, 969 P.2d 584.) It therefore provides two ways a defendant can obtain review of his or her current mental condition to determine if civil confinement is still necessary. Section 6608 permits a defendant to petition for conditional release to a community treatment program. Our focus here, however, is on section 6605, which calls for an annual review of a defendant's mental status2 that may lead to unconditional release.
Subdivision (b) of section 6605 states: (Italics added.) If the court finds probable cause, it sets the matter for trial. (§ 6605, subd. (c).) If at trial the trier of fact finds for the defendant, he or she is entitled to unconditional release. (§ 6605, subd. (e).)
Because defendant did not waive his right to seek conditional release to a community treatment program, section 6605, subdivision (b), required the court to conduct a "show cause hearing" to determine whether to conduct a trial that might lead to defendant's unconditional release.3 Under section 6605, subdivision (b), it is immaterial that defendant did not petition for conditional release.
(Lennane v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 263, 268, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 563, 885 P.2d 976.) "" (Snukal v. Flightways Manufacturing, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 754, 778, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 3 P.3d 286.)
We apply these principles to the construction of section 6605. Although the language of section 6605 does not expressly describe the nature of the show cause hearing, we can draw reasonable inferences from the words chosen and from consideration of the similarities and differences between section 6605 and other provisions of the Act. Section 6605 resembles section 6602, which provides for a probable cause hearing in connection with an initial commitment under the Act. Section 6602 says: If the court finds probable cause, it refers the matter for a trial to determine if the defendant is a sexually violent predator. (Ibid.)
In In re Parker (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1453, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 167, the Court of Appeal, construing section 6602, observed that both the section's reference to a hearing and its reference to the right of the defendant to have an attorney present imply something more than a paper review. (60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1464, 71 Cal. Rptr.2d 167; see Gerstein v. Pugh (1975) 420 U.S. 103, 122, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54.) Parker noted that other provisions of the Act, such as section 6601.5, clearly limited judicial action to "only a paper review," but that section 6602 did not. (60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1466, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 167.) Parker also analogized section 6602 to pretrial administrative proceedings under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (§ 5000 et seq.) and other civil commitment proceedings, as well as to preliminary hearings in criminal prosecutions, all of which grant a defendant the opportunity to present evidence. (60 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1467-1468, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 167.) Parker then expressly concluded that a defendant at a section 6602 probable cause hearing should have the right to present both oral and written evidence and to cross-examine the authors of any adverse...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Superior Court of Mendocino Cnty.
...to challenge the accuracy of such reports by calling such experts for cross-examination." ( Ibid . )In People v. Cheek (2001) 25 Cal.4th 894, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 181, 24 P.3d 1204, the Supreme Court considered section 6605, a provision of the SVP Act related to petitions for unconditional relea......
-
Walker v. City of S.F.
...1469–1470, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 167.)The Supreme Court endorsed Parker ’s approach to probable cause hearings in People v. Cheek (2001) 25 Cal.4th 894, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 181, 24 P.3d 1204. Cheek addressed the parameters of a "show cause hearing" under section 6605, a parallel provision of the SVP A......
-
People v. Peyton
...to carry the same burden of showing SVP status as they did when initially committing the inmate. (See People v. Cheek (2001) 25 Cal.4th 894, 899, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 181, 24 P.3d 1204.) After evaluating the evidence, the trial court has the power to (1) grant an unconditional discharge, (2) pla......
-
People v. Hurtado
...makes it likely that any appeal raising the issue would become moot before we could decide it. (See People v. Cheek (2001) 25 Cal.4th 894, 897-898, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 181, 24 P.3d 1204; Conservatorship of Wendland (2001) 26 Cal.4th 519, 524, fn. 1, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 412, 28 P.3d III We conclude ......