P. v. Johnson
Defendant Joseph Johnson, Jr. appeals from an order of the trial court recommitting him to the Department of Mental Health for a period of two years from 2002 to 2004 under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.)[1] He argues: (1) the trial court should have dismissed the recommitment petition before trial because it was moot; (2) trial on the moot petition violated his right to substantive due process; (3) the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the prosecutions expert witnesses to testify about offenses for which defendant was arrested and charged but not convicted; (4) the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the prosecutions experts to testify about a murder solicitation charge of which defendant was not convicted; (5) these evidentiary rulings violated his due process right to a fair trial; and (6) the trial courts order requiring him to pay attorney fees is not supported by substantial evidence and did not comply with statutory procedures.
Court find merit in defendants attorney fee claim. Court therefore strike the order requiring payment of attorney fees and remand the matter for a hearing on defendants ability to pay the actual costs of the legal services provided. However, because the commitment period at issue (2002 to 2004) has expired, Court dismiss this appeal as moot after deciding the attorney fee question for the guidance of future SVPA proceedings.
Comments on P. v. Johnson