Macy v. Super. Ct. 7/9/12 CA6

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: H037138M

Case Date: 09/12/2012

Preview:Filed 7/9/12

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DANIEL JAMES MACY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

H037138 (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. ME-43) ORDER

THE COURT:

The above captioned opinion, filed on June 15, 2012, is hereby modified as follows: On page 17 of the opinion, after "It is reasonable to conclude, as the court did in Gray," add the following footnote: We reject petitioner's claim that the petition must be dismissed and Gray is no longer good law as the result of the amendment of section 6604.1, subdivision (b), by Proposition 83, which was approved in November 2006 and provided for indeterminate rather than two-year terms of commitment for SVP's (

Download Macy v. Super. Ct. 7/9/12 CA6.pdf