What is the state's burden of proof in revocation proceedings?

⁶ As appellant notes, the state's burden is lower in revocation proceedings than it is in unconditional discharge trials. In the former, the state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that "the person is a danger to the health and safety of others" (Pen. Code, 1609 ) or "requires extended inpatient treatment or refuses to accept further outpatient treatment and supervision" (Pen. Code, 1608 ). (See 6608, subd. (h) ["The procedures described in Sections 1605 to 1610, inclusive, of the Penal Code shall apply to the person placed in the forensic conditional release program."]; People v. DeGuzman (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 414, 419, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 137 [preponderance of the evidence standard applies in Pen. Code, 1608 & 1609 revocation proceedings].) In contrast, in an unconditional discharge trial, "[t]he burden of proof ... shall be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the committed person's diagnosed mental disorder remains such that he or she is a danger to the health and safety of others and is likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior if discharged." ( 6605, subd. (a)(3).) Appellant suggests our construction of section 6608(m) would enable the state to "duck its burden under section 6605 and avoid trial simply by pursuing a motion to revoke outpatient status." We decline to assume the state will abuse the statutory scheme in this manner.