Davenport v. Superior Court
202 Cal. App. 4th 665
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Davenport, an inmate, was referred to DMH to determine if he met SVP criteria, based on two evaluations using a DMH protocol that later was deemed an underground regulation.
- Ronje held the protocol was invalid and required new evaluations under a valid protocol and a new probable cause hearing, not dismissal.
- After Ronje, Davenport received new evaluations; opinions split among evaluators again, with independent evaluators also disagreeing.
- Davenport moved to dismiss, arguing the petition lacked two valid concurrent evaluations, which the trial court denied.
- This court held that the split opinions do not require dismissal; the process may proceed with a new probable cause hearing and trial if warranted.
- The court emphasized that dismissal is drastic and that procedures—probable cause, jury trial, unanimous verdict—protect against improper release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May dismissal be required when evaluations are from an invalid protocol? | Davenport argues Ronje requires dismissal and restarting the process. | People contend remedy is adoption of APA-compliant protocol, not dismissal. | No; dismissal not required. |
| What is the proper remedy after a Ronje-type invalid protocol ruling? | Davenport seeks dismissal and restart of SVP evaluation. | People advocate new evaluations under a valid protocol and new probable cause hearing. | Remedy is to order new evaluations and a new probable cause hearing, not dismissal. |
| Do splits in post-petition evaluations undermine the petition proceeding? | Split opinions undermine the petition's validity. | The process remains viable; unresolved opinions do not end the petition. | Proceed to probable cause hearing and trial; not dismissed. |
| Did the use of an invalid protocol affect the court's jurisdiction or require restarting the process from the beginning? | Process should begin anew due to reliance on invalid protocol. | Fundamental jurisdiction remains; the process can continue with updated evaluations. | Proceed with the existing petition; continue to the updated evaluations and further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ronje, 179 Cal.App.4th 509 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (invalid underground protocol; remedy is new evaluations and probable cause hearing, not dismissal)
- Medina, 171 Cal.App.4th 805 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (procedural safeguards in SVP process)
- Gray v. Superior Court, 95 Cal.App.4th 322 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (postpetition evaluations informational; not dispositive of petition)
- Salter, 192 Cal.App.4th 1352 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (conflicting MDO opinions; jury trial valid to resolve conflicts)
- Preciado, 87 Cal.App.4th 1122 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (collateral nature of evaluation process; petition burden shift to trial)
- People v. Scott, 100 Cal.App.4th 1060 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (two concurring experts prerequisite to commence petition, not require at trial)