People v. Smith, A159649
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | BURNS, J. |
| Citation | 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 420,75 Cal.App.5th 332 |
| Decision Date | 17 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | A159649 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Fraisure Earl SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. |
75 Cal.App.5th 332
290 Cal.Rptr.3d 420
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Fraisure Earl SMITH, Defendant and Appellant.
A159649
Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5, California.
Filed February 17, 2022
Jean Matulis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Eric D. Share, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Karen Z. Bovarnick, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BURNS, J.
Fraisure Earl Smith appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for conditional release from indefinite commitment as a sexually violent predator. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6608.1 ) His petition alleged that he has not been diagnosed with a valid mental disorder and that he no longer poses a danger of engaging in sexually violent criminal behavior. We conclude the court erred in holding that his conditional release petition was frivolous, and we reverse and remand for a hearing on the petition.
Smith also challenges the trial court's denial of his petition for unconditional discharge under section 6605, asserting that the court erred in holding that he was required to obtain state authorization before filing the petition. We disagree with Smith on this point and affirm the court's order.
BACKGROUND
A.
The Sexually Violent Predators Act (the Act; § 6600 et seq. ) authorizes the involuntary, indefinite civil commitment of persons who have been convicted of certain sex offenses upon their release from prison. ( People v. Smith (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 445, 451, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 90 ( Smith III ).) To justify such commitment, the People must prove that the person " ‘(1) has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against at least one victim and (2) "has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes [him or her] 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." ’ " ( Ibid. ; §§ 6600, subd. (a)(1), 6604.)
The Act "was ‘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." ’ " ( People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1186, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 427, 223 P.3d 566 ( McKee ).) To that end, section 6604.9 requires that every committed person "shall have a current examination of his or her mental condition made at least once every year" and that the State Department of State Hospitals (department) file with the court a report by a professionally qualified person reflecting the results of that examination. ( § 6604.9, subds. (a), (c).) The "report shall include consideration of whether the committed person currently meets the definition of a sexually violent predator" and whether unconditional release or release with conditions "would adequately protect the community." ( § 6604.9, subd. (b).)
The Act provides two pathways for obtaining release. First, the committed person may petition for conditional release under section 6608, either with or without the concurrence of the Director of State Hospitals (director). ( §§ 6608, subd. (a), 6604.9, subd. (d).) After one year of conditional release, the person may petition for unconditional discharge—again, with or without the director's concurrence. ( § 6608, subd. (m).) Second, if the department determines that the person no longer meets the criteria for a sexually violent predator, the person may petition the court for an unconditional discharge. ( § 6604.9, subd. (d).)
B.
Smith served a prison term after pleading no contest to assault with intent to commit rape and admitting prior conviction and prison term allegations ( Pen. Code, §§ 220, 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12 );
People v. Smith (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 947, 949-950, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 208 ( Smith I ).) Before his parole
date, he was declared a sexually violent predator and committed to Coalinga State Hospital in 2010. ( Smith I , supra , 216 Cal.App.4th at pp. 949-950, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 208.)
In 2012, Smith petitioned for conditional release under section 6608. The trial court denied the petition, and a division of this court reversed. ( Smith I , supra , 216 Cal.App.4th at pp. 949, 954, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 208.) On remand, Smith was released conditionally. (People v. Smith (Dec. 17, 2019, A153254) [nonpub. opn.] 2019 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 8381, [*1] (Smith II ).)2 However, he was recommitted in 2017 after the People successfully petitioned to revoke his conditional release based on violations of the program rules. (Id. at pp. [*6], [*13-*14]; Smith III , supra , 49 Cal.App.5th at p. 450, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 90.)
C.
The instant release petition alleges that Smith's diagnosis of "Other[ ] Specified" Paraphilia is invalid and he has no mental condition that justifies his commitment. In addition, Smith alleges that he is no longer dangerous and may be safely released because he has serious medical problems, has undergone sex offender treatment, and did not re-offend during the 18 months he spent in the community on conditional release.
While the petition was pending, the department filed a new annual report with the trial court. In the report, a forensic psychologist concluded that neither conditional release nor unconditional discharge were appropriate because Smith continued to have a qualifying mental disorder ("Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder involving nonconsenting females"), it was likely that Smith would continue to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior if released, and the safety of the community therefore could not be assured.
The court denied Smith's request for unconditional discharge under section 6605, concluding that he is not entitled to petition for unconditional discharge without the authorization of the department. The court denied Smith's request for conditional release under section 6608, concluding the petition is frivolous because Smith's condition had not changed sufficiently to warrant a hearing, his diagnosis is not invalid, and (based on the latest annual report) there is no basis to hold a hearing.
DISCUSSION
A.
Petition for Conditional Release Under Section 6608
Smith contends the trial court erred in denying his petition for conditional release as frivolous. We agree.
1.
In reviewing the trial court's dismissal of Smith's petition as frivolous, we consider whether the court abused its discretion. (See People v. LaBlanc (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1071, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 886 ( LaBlanc ) [" ‘[t]he trial court has abused its discretion if appellate review shows that the petition is not based upon frivolous grounds’ "].)
The frivolousness inquiry presents a low hurdle for a petitioner. A petition is frivolous only if it " ‘indisputably
has no merit.’ " ( McKee , supra , 47 Cal.4th at p. 1192, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 427, 223 P.3d 566.) Put another way, a petition is frivolous where "any reasonable attorney would agree that the petition is completely and totally without merit." ( People v. Olsen (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 981, 998, 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 791 ( Olsen ).) The court's limited role is to "review the facial adequacy of the petition to state a basis for relief, specifically, to determine whether the defendant has alleged facts ‘that will show he is not likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior due to his diagnosed mental disorder without supervision and treatment in the community.’ " ( Smith I , supra , 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 951, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 208, quoting People v. Reynolds (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1407, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 560.) "Nothing in section 6608 requires that a defendant support his petition with admissible evidence in order to obtain a hearing." ( Smith I at p. 953, fn. 4, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 208.)
2.
Smith correctly asserts that the trial court applied an erroneous legal standard in determining that his petition was frivolous.
A court may summarily deny a petition for conditional release if it determines the allegations are utterly without merit or, in some cases, if the petitioner has filed repetitive petitions. In the latter case, after the court has denied a petition, the court must deny a subsequent petition "unless it contains facts upon which a court could find that the condition of the committed person had so changed that a hearing was warranted." (
§ 6608, subd. (a).) The obvious purpose of the rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Peyton, B314992
...release for a year and then petitioning for unconditional discharge (§ 6608, subd. (m))? Our colleagues in People v. Smith (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 332, 336, 344, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 420 ( Smith 2022 ) held that the Act does not authorize an SVP to directly petition for unconditional discharge wit......
-
People v. Peyton, B314992
...release for a year and then petitioning for unconditional discharge (§ 6608, subd. (m))? Our colleagues in People v. Smith (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 332, 336, 344, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 420 ( Smith 2022 ) held that the Act does not authorize an SVP to directly petition for unconditional discharge wit......