People v. Olsen
229 Cal. App. 4th 981
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Olsen was committed to an indeterminate SVP term under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6604 after a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator.
- The SVPA was amended in 2006 to create indeterminate terms and authorize conditional and unconditional releases; prior two-year terms were eliminated.
- In May 2013 Olsen filed a section 6608 petition for conditional release without Department concurrence.
- The trial court denied the petition as frivolous on June 21, 2013, relying on a comparison of Dr. Park’s 2013 evaluation to the 2010 evaluation and prior materials.
- On appeal Olsen challenged the frivolousness ruling and asserted equal protection and due process concerns; the court found the threshold frivolousness standard applied was incorrect.
- The court reversed and remanded for the threshold frivolousness determination to be reconsidered under the correct standard and, if nonfrivolous, to proceed to an evidentiary hearing on conditional release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the threshold frivolousness standard was applied correctly | Olsen argues the court used the wrong standard, granting summary denial improperly. | People contend the court can consider the annual report and petition materials to assess frivolousness. | Remanded to apply correct threshold standard for frivolousness under 6608(a). |
| Whether the annual departmental report may be used in the frivolousness determination | Olsen asserts the court should not consider the annual report at threshold without authorization. | People contend annual report can inform whether the petition rests on nonfrivolous grounds. | Court may review annual report in threshold frivolousness analysis. |
| Whether the petition for conditional release should be summarily denied if frivolous | Olsen contends the petition should be evaluated on its face and attachments, not dismissed solely by comparison to prior cases. | People argue summary denial is appropriate if frivolous on face value and supporting materials. | Remanded to determine frivolousness under the proper standard; if nonfrivolous, proceed to evidentiary hearing. |
| Whether the court erred by considering pre-hearing response materials | Olsen asserts consideration of the People’s response before a nonfrivolous finding violated the process. | People contend such consideration is permissible to assess frivolousness. | Not reached; remand to apply the correct threshold framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2009) (defines frivolous grounds for 6608 and review standards)
- In re Flaherty, 31 Cal.3d 637 (Cal. 1982) (frivolousness standard for appeals; 'totally without merit')
- People v. Reynolds, 181 Cal.App.4th 1402 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2010) (framing of frivolous grounds in 6608 context)
- People v. Collins, 110 Cal.App.4th 340 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2003) (review of frivolousness and evidentiary scope)
- People v. Smith, 212 Cal.App.4th 1394 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2012) (two Smith opinions establishing threshold/frivolous analysis)
- People v. Smith, 216 Cal.App.4th 947 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2013) (frivolousness standard and evidentiary considerations)
- People v. Olsen, H039814 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2014) (authoritative decision on remand and threshold analysis under 6608)