Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 407542
Siggins, J.
Defendant Timothy McKnight appeals from a judgment that extended his civil commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 et seq. Because the term of defendant’s recommitment has expired, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
Effective November 8, 2006, the SVPA was amended by Proposition 83, The Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act: Jessica’s Law. (Prop. 83, approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2006).) In this opinion, we cite the statutes in effect when defendant was committed to the two-year term he challenges in this appeal.
BACKGROUND
A detailed discussion of the offenses that determined defendant is a sexually violent predator (SVP) is contained in our prior opinion, affirming his commitment. (People v. McKnight (May 31, 2002, A094449 [nonpub. opn.].) In short, between 1987 and 1988 defendant raped three women and sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl. He served 10 years in prison and was then committed as a SVP to Atascadero State Hospital for two years. He was recommitted twice, in 2003 and in 2005. Defendant’s second SVP recommitment, from which this appeal is taken, expired on or around January 31, 2007.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends that (1) the court erred in rejecting a pinpoint instruction that in order to commit him as an SVPA, a requisite mental disorder must cause the defendant to “suffer from serious difficulty in controlling his behavior with respect to predatory sexual offenses”; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of “serious difficulty.” The People assert the jury was properly instructed, that substantial evidence supports the verdict, and that the appeal must be dismissed as moot. We agree that this appeal should be dismissed as moot.
I. The Appeal Is Moot
The People contend that reversal in this case would have no operative effect because defendant has already served his extended commitment and his further confinement would be due to a subsequent recommitment. Other courts have recognized that in such circumstances the case is moot. (See People v. Cheek (2001) 25 Cal.4th 894, 897-898 [dismissing SVPA appeal as moot but addressing the merits because the issue was likely to recur while evading appellate review and involved a matter of public interest]; People v. Hayes (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 34, 52 [appeal moot as to expired SVPA term].) Defendant, however, asserts that dismissal is inappropriate because “even an ostensibly ‘moot’ appeal implicates the overall validity of continued commitment of the offender” and, given the two-year time frequency of recommitments, strict application of the mootness doctrine would preclude almost all appeals from SVP recommitments. Alternatively, defendant says his appeal should not be dismissed as moot because the instructional issue is likely to occur again while evading appellate review and involves an important matter of public interest. We will consider, then, whether this moot case nonetheless warrants appellate review.
Defendant concedes he is not in custody on the commitment at issue here, but states that he remains in custody at Coalinga State Hospital.
Defendant contends review of his 2005 commitment is appropriate despite its expiration because “every commitment implicates the validity of those that follow.” But the cases characterize each recommitment hearing as independent of any that preceded it. “[A]n SVP extension hearing is not a review hearing. It is not the mere continuation of an earlier proceeding and, except in a limited sense, the petitioner cannot rely on findings made at earlier SVP hearings to shape the issues or to prove SVP status in a current proceeding. An SVP extension hearing is a new and independent proceeding at which, with limited exceptions, the petitioner must prove the defendant meets the criteria, including that he or she has a currently diagnosed mental disorder that renders the person dangerous.” (See People v. Munoz (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 421, 429-430; Butler v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1179-1182 [Legislature intended recommitment petition to be based on the SVP’s mental condition at the end of the initial two-year term].) We agree. Defendant is therefore mistaken in contending appellate review of his expired recommitment has an effect upon subsequent SVP proceedings.
II. Discretionary Review Is Not Warranted
Although courts possess the discretion to decide moot issues in some circumstances (see People v. Cheek, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 897-898), this is not such a case. Defendant observes that SVPA proceedings often elude appellate review because recommitments expire before an appeal can be decided. But while this may happen in many cases, it is a byproduct of the statutory scheme crafted by the Legislature that is beyond our purview to supplant. Moreover, entertaining an appeal from an expired commitment could not provide meaningful relief.
We also do not consider the issues defendant attempts to raise to be sufficiently important to warrant appellate review even though this case is moot. Defendant argues it was error for the court to refuse an instruction that the People must prove his mental disorder “causes him to suffer from serious difficulty in controlling his behavior with respect to sexual offenses.” In People v. Williams (2003) 31 Cal.4th 757, our Supreme Court squarely held that no such instruction is required because the language of the SVPA used to instruct the jury in this case “inherently encompasses and conveys to a fact finder the requirement of a mental disorder that causes serious difficulty in controlling one’s criminal sexual behavior.” (Id. at pp. 759, 774.) This case presents no cause to revisit that issue; nor, in the absence of any possibility of meaningful relief were error to be found, is there any basis to address defendant’s related claim that the evidence was insufficient to establish he would have “serious difficulty in controlling”[his] criminal sexual behavior.”
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: McGuiness, P.J., Pollak, J.