A court sitting in the county where defendant was convicted of the offense for which he was sent to prison has jurisdiction to commit that defendant as a sexually violent predator. The defendant in this case had a history of sex offenses dating back to the 1940s. His most recent commitment involved sentences from Sonoma County and San Mateo County, and at the time of his scheduled release the Sonoma County District Attorney filed a petition alleging that the defendant was a sexually violent predator and requesting his commitment to a state hospital. The defendant moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that only San Mateo County had jurisdiction to hear the petition, because San Mateo County had been the last county to impose sentence. The appellate court upheld the denial of the motion to dismiss, holding that the language of Welfare and Institutions Code section 6601, subdivision (i), vested jurisdiction in either county under these facts. Further, the appellate court found that the trial court had not erred in excluding evidence regarding the terms and conditions to which defendant would be subjected were he to be paroled, holding that the relevant determination under section 6600, subdivision (a)(1), was whether appellant had a diagnosed medical disorder predisposing him to commit certain acts, not whether his parole conditions would protect the public from the risk of his reoffending.