34 Cal.App.5th 980
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Derrick Morrison was serving a 20-year term for kidnapping and raping a 14‑year‑old; near release he was screened as a potential Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) under the SVPA.
- Two initial state‑appointed psychologists (subd. (d)) evaluated Morrison and initially split: Dr. Parecki concluded he met SVP criteria; Dr. Jeko initially concluded he did not.
- Because of the split, two independent evaluators (subd. (e)) were appointed; they also split (one yes, one no).
- Peer review of all four reports revealed Dr. Jeko had not reviewed numerous CDCR Rule 115 reports documenting repeated indecent exposure, masturbation, and threatening sexualized conduct toward female staff; after review she revised her opinion to conclude Morrison met SVP criteria.
- DSH certified the two original reports (including Jeko’s revised report) and forwarded them to the county; the District Attorney filed a commitment petition. The superior court dismissed the petition, holding §6601(f) barred filing because the independent evaluators had not both concurred.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that once the two initial evaluators ultimately concur (even after peer review and after independent evaluations were conducted), the Director had a mandatory duty under §6601(d) to forward a request to file a petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Morrison) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a commitment petition may be filed when the two original §6601(d) evaluators ultimately concur after peer review, despite a nonconcurrence by the two independent evaluators under §6601(e)/(f). | The statute permits evaluators to revise reports pre‑certification; where the original evaluators ultimately concur, the Director must forward a filing request; dismissing forecloses trial and public protection. | §6601(f) unambiguously precludes filing unless both independent evaluators (the §6601(e) reviewers) concur; once independent examinations occur, their concurrence (or lack of it) controls. | The Court held that when the two §6601(d) evaluators ultimately concur (even after initial disagreement and after independent evaluations), the Director must request filing; §6601(f) does not prohibit relying on revised original evaluations certified after peer review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbart v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1138 (1999) (describing SVPA evaluation process and requirements)
- Reilly v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.4th 641 (2013) (petitions should not be dismissed for administrative errors absent material error; remedy may be reevaluation)
- People v. McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (2010) (effect of Proposition 83 on SVP indeterminate commitment)
- People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti), 27 Cal.4th 888 (2002) (SVP proceedings and stakes of dismissal)
- People v. Superior Court (Preciado), 87 Cal.App.4th 1122 (2001) (pre‑petition evaluations are preliminary; trial determines SVP status)