Boysel v. Superior Court
Richard Boysel 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, Boysel v. Superior Court (Mar. 28, 2012, G045202) (nonpub. opn.), review granted June 13, 2012, S202324, we denied Boysel’s petition for writ of mandate/prohibition, which sought a writ directing the respondent court to grant his plea in abatement and dismiss the 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. No party filed a supplemental brief pursuant to rule 8.200(b)(1) of the California Rules of Court.
As the Supreme Court directed, we have reconsidered this matter in light of Reilly and again deny Boysel’s petition for writ of mandate/prohibition. Our decision is without prejudice to Boysel challenging the probable cause determination pursuant to Reilly, supra, 57 Cal.4th at pages 656‑657, footnote 5, and without prejudice to Boysel and the People obtaining further examinations and evaluations permitted by the SVPA.
Comments on Boysel v. Superior Court