After appellant had served two years in state prison for making terrorist threats, the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) determined that he was a mentally disordered offender (MDO). In 1999, appellant filed a petition to review that determination in the superior court, and the court entered a judgment in his favor. Later that year, appellant was incarcerated on a parole violation. The BPT again determined that he had a severe mental disorder. Appellant filed a petition for a superior court hearing. He also filed a motion to bar the proceedings and for summary judgment based on res judicata and collateral estoppel, because the prosecution was using the same 1997 qualifying offense that it had used in the first case. The trial court denied his motion and found him to be an MDO. The appellate court here reversed that judgment. The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply. The first and second cases involved the same issues, the same parties, the same qualifying offense, and the same expert. The prosecution was not entitled to a second opportunity to prove an element it did not establish in the first case.