Smith v. Superior Court
Richard Anthony Smith is the subject of a commitment petition filed pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act, Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 et seq. (SVPA).[1] In our prior opinion, Smith v. Superior Court (Mar. 28, 2012, G045119) (nonpub. opn.), review granted June 27, 2012, S202338, we granted Smith’s petition for writ of mandate/prohibition and directed the respondent court to grant his plea in abatement, in effect dismissing the SVPA commitment petition.
The California Supreme Court granted review of our opinion. After issuing its decision in Reilly v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 641 (Reilly), the Supreme Court transferred this matter to us for reconsideration in light of that decision. Following transfer, Smith submitted a supplemental opening brief pursuant to rule 8.200(b)(1) of the California Rules of Court. The district attorney did not file a supplemental responding brief.
As the Supreme Court directed, we have reconsidered this matter in light of Reilly and now conclude Smith’s petition for writ of mandate/prohibition must be denied in part and granted in part. We deny Smith’s request for a writ directing the respondent court to grant his plea in abatement. We grant Smith’s request for a writ directing the respondent court to vacate its order granting the district attorney’s motion to compel him to undergo a mental examination by the district attorney’s retained mental health professional and granting that mental health professional access to Smith’s state hospital records. Our decision is without prejudice to Smith challenging the probable cause determination pursuant to Reilly, supra, 57 Cal.4th at pages 656‑657, footnote 5, and without prejudice to Smith and the People obtaining further examinations and evaluations permitted by the SVPA.
Comments on Smith v. Superior Court