People v. Smith
Decision Date | 26 May 2020 |
Docket Number | A155689 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Fraisure SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. |
Jean F. Matulis, By Appointment of the First District Court of Appeal under the First District Appellate Project, for Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Bruce M. Slavin, Deputy Attorney General, and Karen Z. Bovarnick, Deputy Attorney General.
SIMONS, Acting P.J. Fraisure Smith, a committed sexually violent predator (SVP), was on conditional release when he filed a petition for unconditional discharge. During the unconditional discharge proceedings, his conditional release was revoked. We conclude that a statutory requirement that an SVP must have spent at least a year on conditional release requires a committed person to have been on conditional release for at least one year when the unconditional discharge petition is filed and to remain on that status throughout the duration of the unconditional discharge proceedings. Thus, the revocation of appellant's conditional release rendered him statutorily ineligible for unconditional discharge.
BACKGROUND
( People v. Smith (Dec. 17, 2019, A153254) 2019 WL 7020056 [nonpub. opn.].)1 ( Ibid. )
In March 2016, appellant filed a petition for unconditional discharge. In February 2017, following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found appellant had established probable cause that he was no longer a public safety risk. The matter was continued to allow the state to prepare an expert evaluation before a jury trial.
In May 2017, the People filed a petition to revoke appellant's conditional release status ( Pen. Code, § 1609 ). ( People v. Smith, supra, A153254.) In October, following a contested hearing, the trial court granted the petition and recommitted appellant as an inpatient to Coalinga State Hospital.2 ( Ibid. ) At the October hearing, after the trial court ordered revocation, it determined appellant's unconditional discharge petition
In April 2018, appellant filed a Marsden3 motion based on his counsel's failure to pursue appellant's petition for unconditional discharge. In May, following a Marsden hearing at which appellant withdrew his request, the trial court determined its previous ruling that appellant was no longer entitled to a trial on his unconditional discharge petition was erroneous, and appellant was in fact entitled to a jury trial. Trial was set for October.
In July 2018, the People filed a motion seeking (1) reconsideration of the finding that appellant demonstrated probable cause he was no longer a public safety risk, and (2) dismissal of appellant's unconditional discharge petition due to changed circumstances.4 The motion argued the trial court had the inherent authority to reconsider its prior probable cause finding, and it should do so based on the trial court's finding at the revocation hearing that appellant is a danger to the health and safety of others. The motion also argued that, by statute, an SVP must be on conditional release for at least one year before petitioning for unconditional discharge and, because appellant was not currently on conditional release, he was not statutorily eligible for unconditional discharge. Appellant filed an opposition, arguing solely that the People's motion for reconsideration was untimely (citing Code Civ. Proc., § 1008 ) and not based on an intervening change in law.
The trial court granted the People's motion and issued the following written order:
DISCUSSION
( People v. Putney (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1065, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 600 ( Putney ).)
" ‘[O]nce a person is committed as an SVP, he [or she] remains in custody until he [or she] successfully bears the burden of proving he [or she] is no longer an SVP’—through a petition for unconditional discharge under section 6605 or conditional release under section 6608 —‘or the [Department of State Hospitals] determines he [or she] no longer meets the definition of an SVP.’ " ( Putney, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at p. 1066, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 600.) The procedure to petition for conditional release is not relevant to this appeal.
With respect to unconditional discharge, section 6608, subdivision (m) (hereafter, section 6608(m) ) provides:
Section 6605, subdivision (a), provides that, when a court receives a petition for unconditional discharge, it holds a 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. (a)(1)–(2); see also Cooley v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 228, 252, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 177, 57 P.3d 654 [ ].) If the court finds such probable cause exists, the matter proceeds to a court or jury trial. (§ 6605, subd. (a)(2)–(3).) "If the court or jury rules for the committed person, he or she shall be unconditionally released and unconditionally discharged." (§ 6605, subd. (b).)
Appellant contends (1) the trial court improperly granted reconsideration of its prior probable cause finding, and (2) the revocation of appellant's conditional release did not impact his right to a jury trial on his unconditional release petition. We disagree with the second contention and find it unnecessary to decide the first.
The parties dispute whether the revocation of appellant's conditional release—resulting in his recommitment to a state hospital—rendered him statutorily ineligible for unconditional discharge. Appellant argues that section 6608(m) only requires that he have spent at least a year on conditional release at the time his unconditional discharge petition was filed, and it is therefore immaterial that his conditional release was subsequently revoked. The People contend section 6608(m) ’s requirement applies throughout the unconditional discharge proceedings, such that if conditional release is revoked during this time, the unconditional discharge petition must be dismissed or denied.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Peyton
...SVPs [to] demonstrate the ability to spend a year in the community" without revocation of that status ( People v. Smith (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 445, 453, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 90 ).Third, the State's interest in using the two-step process that starts with the one-year period of conditional release ......
-
In re Kerins
... ... ... STREETER, ACTING P.J ... In July ... 2006, the People filed a petition to commit Brian Kerins as a ... Sexually Violent Predator (SVP). More than 14 years later, ... Kerins unsuccessfully ... 945, 950, citing Strickland v. Washington , ... supra , 466 U.S. at p. 687; see People v ... Smith (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 445, 456 [applying ... Strickland test for ineffective assistance of ... counsel to SVP proceeding].) "When ... ...
-
People v. Gunn
...to the health and safety of others and is not likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior if discharged.' ” (People v. Smith (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 445, 452.) Section 6605, subdivision (a)(2) provides that, if the court “determines that probable cause exists to believe that the co......
-
People v. Consiglio
...of a civil nature." ’ " ( People v. Putney (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1065, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 600 ; accord People v. Smith (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 445, 451, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 90.) To establish that an offender is an SVP, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender (1) has bee......