California Court of Appeal

In an appeal addressing constitutional issues concerning the Sexually Violent Predator Act, an order declaring defendant a sexually violent predator (SVP) is affirmed where: 1) defendant's claims of not being lawfully in custody at the time which the district attorney filed his SVP petition were unavailing; 2) neither the imposition of an indeterminate term of commitment, nor placing some burden on the SVP individual to petition for release, violated due process; 3) individuals found to be SPVs are not similarly situated to those committed by reason of mental disorder or insanity, and thus the same treatment is not required for purposes of equal protection analysis; and 4) the current version of the SVP Act is not punitive in nature, and thus, the principles of former jeopardy and ex post facto do not apply.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/14/2008
• Published 05/14/2008

Judges

• McCONNELL, P.J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Buckley & Buckley and Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant., Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and Bradley A. Weinreb, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.