Appellant’s SVP recommitment was valid despite lack of compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Medina was adjudged a sexually violent predator (SVP), and in 2005 a petition was filed to recommit him for another period of two years. In late 2006, section 6604 was amended to provide for an indefinite period of commitment. Prior to the trial on the 2005 recommitment petition, the county filed an amended recommitment petition seeking the indefinite commitment. Medina admitted the petition, consented to an entry of an order imposing an indefinite term, and filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, he argued that the original commitment petition was void because it was based on an evaluation conducted pursuant to a protocol adopted by the department in violation of the APA. The appellate court rejected the collateral attack because Medina forfeited any challenge to the validity of the procedures preceding the filing of the original petition when he admitted its allegations. Further, even if his consent to the judgment did not forfeit the issues, his failure to raise the issue in the trial court would have done so. Medina failed to show that had his trial counsel challenged the protocol and obtained reevaluation, it was reasonably probable that he would not have been found to be an SVP.