Tighe v. Superior Court (People)

         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

         San Diego County Super. Ct. No. MH100903

          NARES, J.

         PROCEEDINGS in mandate after the superior court ordered the Department of Mental Health to appoint evaluators. Kerry Wells, Judge. Petition granted.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         In 2007, the People filed a petition to commit Robert Tighe as a sexually violent predator supported by the opinion of two evaluators that Tighe met the criteria for commitment. The case went to trial, the jury deadlocked, and the court declared a mistrial in 2008.

         After the mistrial, one of the People's evaluators became unavailable, and the Department of Mental Health (Department) appointed an evaluator to conduct a replacement evaluation. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6603, subd. (c), which authorizes the attorney petitioning for commitment to request the Department to perform a replacement evaluation when one of the original evaluators is no longer available to testify for the petitioner in court proceedings.) The replacement evaluator concluded that Tighe did not meet the criteria for civil commitment. Because of the split of opinion between the replacement evaluator and remaining original evaluator, the Department authorized two additional evaluations. (See § 6603, subd. (c)(1), which provides for two additional evaluations if a replacement evaluation results in a split opinion as to whether the proposed conservatee satisfies the statutory criteria for commitment.)

         The case was tried a second time, and all four evaluators (the remaining original evaluator, the replacement evaluator, and the two additional evaluators) testified. The jury deadlocked, and the court declared another mistrial in June 2010. At the request of the People, the Department thereafter provided updated evaluations from the four doctors who testified at the second trial. (See § 6603, subd. (c), which allows updated evaluations when necessary to properly present the case for commitment.) The updated evaluations resulted in three of the four evaluators concluding that Tighe did not meet the criteria for commitment.

         The People then asked the Department to authorize another two additional evaluations, but the Department was unwilling to comply absent court order. On January 7, 2011, on the People's motion, the court ordered the Department to appoint two additional evaluators.

         Tighe filed this writ petition challenging the ruling and asserting the statute does not authorize any evaluations (updated, replacement or additional) under the circumstances here. At our request for an informal response, the People "concede[d] the petition on its merits." We issued Palma notice. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

         No useful purpose could reasonably be served by issuance of an order to show cause or plenary consideration of the matter. Because the relevant facts are not in dispute and the People have conceded Tighe's entitlement to relief, we conclude a peremptory writ in the first instance is proper. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1088; see Alexander v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1218, 1223, disapproved on another ground in Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital (2003) 31 Cal.4th 709, 724, fn. 4; Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35.)

         DISPOSITION

         Let a writ issue directing the superior court to vacate its January 7, 2011 order directing the Department to appoint additional evaluators and to enter a new order denying the People's motion. The stay issued by this court on January 20, 2011, is vacated. The opinion is made final immediately as to this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(3).)

          WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., BENKE, J.