People v. Talhelm

In People v. Talhelm (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 400, the trial court found probable cause that the defendant would engage in sexually violent behavior if released. ( Talhelm, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.) The defendant then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding of probable cause. (Ibid.) The trial court summarily denied the writ, reasoning that the appropriate method for challenging an adverse determination at the probable cause hearing was by a motion brought under Penal Code section 995. (Ibid.) The defendant apparently did not pursue writ relief with the appellate court and instead raised the issue on appeal. (See ibid.) The appellate court agreed with defendant that filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus was the proper procedure and the trial court erred in summarily denying that petition. ( Talhelm, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at pp. 404-405.) However, the appellate court found that the error was not reversible. ( Id. at p. 404.) The court explained that "'irregularities in the preliminary examination procedures which are not jurisdictional in the fundamental sense shall be reviewed under the appropriate standard of prejudicial error and shall require reversal only if defendant can show that he was deprived of a fair trial or otherwise suffered prejudice as a result of the error at the preliminary examination.' Similarly, irregularities in the preliminary hearing under the SVP Act are subject to harmless error review; no reversal is necessary unless the defendant can show that he or she was denied a fair trial or had otherwise suffered prejudice. " ( Id. at p. 405.) The court reviewed the entire record of the proceedings and concluded that the defendant had received a fair trial. It concluded that under those circumstances, reversal was not warranted. (Ibid.)