The claim that an expert’s clinical opinion was insufficient without a formal risk assessment for offender with mental health diagnosis (OMHD) was forfeited on both due process and equal protection grounds. Failure to challenge the expert opinion as inherently unreliable prevented the development of a sufficient record to determine the reliability of a clinical opinion compared to a formal risk assessment tool and to decide whether the Legislature justifiably distinguishes between OMHD and sexually violent predators with regard to the use of such tools. Trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise an issue on which the law is unsettled.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A171799.PDF