petition without hearing in California

2022“Upon receipt of a first or subsequent petition from a committed person without the concurrence of the director, the court shall endeavor whenever possible to review the petition and determine if it is based upon frivolous grounds and, if so, shall deny the petition without a hearing.” (§ 6608, subd. (a).) “If the court determines . . . that the petition is not frivolous, the court shall give notice of the hearing . . . .” (§ 6608, subd. (c)(1).) At the evidentiary hearing, the trial court “determine[s] whether the person committed would be a danger to the health and safety of others in that i

2015(People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1183-1184 (McKee I).) In addition, although it originally required an SVP to have committed sexually violent offenses against two or more victims, the Act now requires only one victim. (§ 6600, subd. (a)(1).) 2 recommendation for conditional release, and the trial court must set a hearing to consider conditional release. (§ 6607.) Second, the SVP may petition the court for a conditional release with or without the concurrence of the DSH. (§ 6608, subd. (a).) Upon receiving a petition filed without the DSH’s concurrence, the court “shall endeavor wheneve

2014Threshold Determination of Frivolousness After the section 6608 petition for conditional release is filed, the trial court is required to make a threshold determination as follows: “Upon receipt of a first or subsequent petition from a committed person without the concurrence of the director, the court shall endeavor whenever possible to review the petition and determine if it is based upon frivolous grounds and, if so, shall deny the petition without a hearing.” (§ 6608, subd. (a).) The apparent rationale for the court’s threshold determination of frivolousness is “to deter multiple unsubstan

2014Threshold Determination of Frivolousness After the section 6608 petition for conditional release is filed, the trial court is required to make a threshold determination as follows: “Upon receipt of a first or subsequent petition from a committed person without the concurrence of the director, the court shall endeavor whenever possible to review the petition and determine if it is based upon frivolous grounds and, if so, shall deny the petition without a hearing.” (§ 6608, subd. (a).) The apparent rationale for the court’s threshold determination of frivolousness is “to deter multiple unsubstan

2022“Upon receipt of a first or subsequent petition from a committed person without the concurrence of the director, the court shall endeavor whenever possible to review the petition and determine if it is based upon frivolous grounds and, if so, shall deny the petition without a hearing.” (§ 6608, subd. (a).) “If the court determines . . . that the petition is not frivolous, the court shall give notice of the hearing . . . .” (§ 6608, subd. (c)(1).) At the evidentiary hearing, the trial court “determine[s] whether the person committed would be a danger to the health and safety of others in that i

2020(Id., subd. (j).) The court reviews the petition in order to 'determine if it is based upon frivolous grounds,' and if it so finds, it 'shall deny the petition without a hearing.' (Id., subd. (a).) Section 6608, subdivision (b) provides: 'The court shall give notice of the hearing date to the attorney designated in subdivision (i) of Section 6601, the retained or appointed attorney for the committed person, and the Director of Mental Health at least 15 court days before the hearing date.' " (Collins, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 347 .) "Section 6608, subdivision (d) provides in part: 'The cour

2013(Stats. 1995, ch. 763, § 3, p. 5922; see People v. Cheek (2001) 25 Cal.4th 894, 898 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 181 , 24 P.3d 1204 ].) Section 6608 authorizes the committed person, after confinement and care for not less than one year, to apply for conditional release to a facility providing supervision and treatment in the community “without the recommendation or concurrence of the Director of State Hospitals.” (§ 6608, subd. (a).) 3 Section 6608 permits the court to deny the petition without a hearing if found to be frivolous (ibid.) or to conduct an evidentiary hearing before the court at which the c

2013(Stats. 1995, ch. 763, § 3, p. 5922; see People v. Cheek (2001) 25 Cal.4th 894, 898 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 181 , 24 P.3d 1204 ].) Section 6608 authorizes the committed person, after confinement and care for not less than one year, to apply for conditional release to a facility providing supervision and treatment in the community “without the recommendation or concurrence of the Director of State Hospitals.” (§ 6608, subd. (a).) 3 Section 6608 permits the court to deny the petition without a hearing if found to be frivolous (ibid.) or to conduct an evidentiary hearing before the court at which the c

2022“Upon receipt of a first or subsequent petition from a committed person without the concurrence of the director, the court shall endeavor whenever possible to review the petition and determine if it is based upon frivolous grounds and, if so, shall deny the petition without a hearing.” (§ 6608, subd. (a).) “If the court determines . . . that the petition is not frivolous, the court shall give notice of the hearing . . . .” (§ 6608, subd. (c)(1).) At the evidentiary hearing, the trial court “determine[s] whether the person committed would be a danger to the health and safety of others in that i

2021“First, the trial court makes a threshold determination as to whether the petition for conditional release is based upon frivolous grounds.” (Olsen, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th at p. 996.) Our high court has described this first step as “an apparent attempt to deter multiple unsubstantiated requests and to reduce the administrative burden that might otherwise occur.” (Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1148, fn. 14 .) In the second step, the trial court conducts an evidentiary hearing “to determine whether the person committed would be a danger to the health and safety of others in t

2010Because defendant waived any opposition to the People’s motion to dismiss the petition and conceded there were no changed circumstances, there was no error. 3 A person committed as an SVP may petition for conditional release or an unconditional discharge, notwithstanding the lack of recommendation or *1407 concurrence by the Director of Mental Health. 4 (§ 6608, subd. (a).) Upon receipt of such a petition without the concurrence of the director, the court “shall endeavor whenever possible to review the petition and determine if it is based upon frivolous grounds and, if so, shall deny the peti

2010Because defendant waived any opposition to the People’s motion to dismiss the petition and conceded there were no changed circumstances, there was no error. 3 A person committed as an SVP may petition for conditional release or an unconditional discharge, notwithstanding the lack of recommendation or *1407 concurrence by the Director of Mental Health. 4 (§ 6608, subd. (a).) Upon receipt of such a petition without the concurrence of the director, the court “shall endeavor whenever possible to review the petition and determine if it is based upon frivolous grounds and, if so, shall deny the peti

2025(People v. Duchine (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 798 , 14 815; see Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 453-454 [relevant jury finding is generally preclusive in section 1172.6 proceedings]; accord, Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 710 ; People v. Beaudreaux (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1227 , 1241 (Beaudreaux).) “[T]he ‘prima facie bar was intentionally and correctly set very low.’” (Lewis, at p. 972; accord, People v. Langi (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 972 , 979- 980; see People v. Lopez (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 566 , 576 [“It is only where the record of conviction establishes the petition lacks merit as a matter of law

2025(People v. Duchine (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 798 , 14 815; see Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 453-454 [relevant jury finding is generally preclusive in section 1172.6 proceedings]; accord, Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 710 ; People v. Beaudreaux (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1227 , 1241 (Beaudreaux).) “[T]he ‘prima facie bar was intentionally and correctly set very low.’” (Lewis, at p. 972; accord, People v. Langi (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 972 , 979- 980; see People v. Lopez (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 566 , 576 [“It is only where the record of conviction establishes the petition lacks merit as a matter of law

2014(In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 .) The petitioner must make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and best interests in order to obtain a hearing; if the allegations of the petition, liberally construed, are inadequate to make a prima facie case, the trial court may deny the petition without a hearing.

2014(In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 .) The petitioner must make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and best interests in order to obtain a hearing; if the showing is inadequate to make a prima facie case, the trial court may deny the petition without a hearing.

2025If only one element of the offense is established by the record, the petitioner could still be correct that he or she could not currently be convicted of the relevant offense based on the absence of other elements.” (Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 463 .) “The record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry under section 117[2.6], allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly meritless.” (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971 .) “It is only where the record of conviction 7 establishes the petition lacks merit as a m

2025(People v. Duchine (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 798 , 14 815; see Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 453-454 [relevant jury finding is generally preclusive in section 1172.6 proceedings]; accord, Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 710 ; People v. Beaudreaux (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1227 , 1241 (Beaudreaux).) “[T]he ‘prima facie bar was intentionally and correctly set very low.’” (Lewis, at p. 972; accord, People v. Langi (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 972 , 979- 980; see People v. Lopez (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 566 , 576 [“It is only where the record of conviction establishes the petition lacks merit as a matter of law

2024(In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 188-189 .) A prima facie showing is not made “unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.” (In re J.P. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 108, 127 .) 3 C.

2014Under the circumstances presented here, we cannot say the court violated mother’s due process rights by deciding her section 388 petition on the basis of information provided in the petition, the factual and procedural record in the case, and argument of counsel.5 (See In re C.J.W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1075 , 1080–1081 (C.J.W.); see also In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 189 [court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case in determining whether section 388 petition makes the necessary showing]; see also In re Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at pp. 460–461

2024(In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 188-189 .) A prima facie showing is not made “unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.” (In re J.P. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 108, 127 .) 3 C.

2015(In re J.P. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 108, 127 [to have a right to a hearing on a modification petition, the petition must state a prima facie case by alleging facts which, if supported by credible evidence at the hearing, would support a favorable decision on the petition].) Mother is not appealing the denial of the petition.

2018However, [the petitioner] did not identify the stolen property or attach evidence, a declaration, or include citations to the record of conviction to support the assertion that it did not exceed $950 in value." ( Ibid . ) The superior court denied the petition without a hearing on the ground the stolen property exceeded $950 in value. ( Ibid. ) The court "did not explain the basis" for its finding. ( Ibid. ) The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that in order for a Proposition 47 petitioner to meet his burden of "showing the value of the property did not exceed $950," the petitioner "must atta

2018However, [the petitioner] did not identify the stolen property or attach evidence, a declaration, or include citations to the record of conviction to support the assertion that it did not exceed $950 in value." ( Ibid . ) The superior court denied the petition without a hearing on the ground the stolen property exceeded $950 in value. ( Ibid. ) The court "did not explain the basis" for its finding. ( Ibid. ) The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that in order for a Proposition 47 petitioner to meet his burden of "showing the value of the property did not exceed $950," the petitioner "must atta

2023“To support a section 388 petition, the change in circumstances must be substantial.” (In re Ernesto R. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 219, 223 (Ernesto R.).) A mere showing of changing circumstances is insufficient.

2015(Id., rule 1432(a); see also In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 .) As one court has explained, ‘if the petition presents any evidence that a hearing would promote the best interests of the child, the court will order the hearing.’ (In re Heather P. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 886, 891 .)” However, the court has discretion to deny the petition without a hearing if the petition fails to make a prima facie showing of evidence which, if accepted as true, would be sufficient to sustain an order granting the petition.

2015(Id., rule 1432(a); see also In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 .) As one court has explained, ‘if the petition presents any evidence that a hearing would promote the best interests of the child, the court will order the hearing.’ (In re Heather P. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 886, 891 .)” However, the court has discretion to deny the petition without a hearing if the petition fails to make a prima facie showing of evidence which, if accepted as true, would be sufficient to sustain an order granting the petition.