SVPA case. Appellant challenged the sufficiency of evidence to support the order which committed him to Atascadero as a sexually violent predator, arguing that if there was sufficient evidence, it was only because his attorney elicited the evidence during cross-examination, and therefore he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court here found that there was sufficient evidence. Even without the expert testimony, appellant’s record showed a lack of control. The expert witnesses’ testimony on direct examination established that the lack of control was due to a diagnosed mental disorder. The court therefore did not need to consider the ineffective assistance of counsel issue.