Appellant waived the right to a hearing on the issue of whether he suffered from a severe mental disorder, and would therefore have treatment by the Department of Mental Health as a condition of parole, pursuant to Penal Code section 2966, subd.(a). The time of his one-year commitment expired, and BPT sought further commitment. Appellant filed a petition challenging the commitment, but subsequently withdrew it. A second petition, filed four months after the initial commitment expired, was dismissed as moot. The appellate court held that when an inmate whom the BPT determines to be an MDO has a right to a hearing on the six criteria only following the initial commitment determination. Once the time has passed for the first determination, and proceedings have been instituted to extend the commitment, the inmate may only challenge the BPT’s determination of his current mental status, irrespective of whether the first commitment resulted from acceptance of the BPT’s determination or from a hearing. Once the initial commitment expired, appellant could not contest his mental state at the time of the commission of the underlying offense.