California Court of Appeal

Defendant's commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator is affirmed, where: 1) defendant failed to show he was prejudiced by the initial evaluators' use of unlawful underground regulations who did not testify; 2) defendant failed to make the requisite showing of ineffective assistance of counsel; 3) the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is not required in SVPA proceedings; 4) the district court did not err in its discovery orders; 5) the various continuances did not deny defendant due process; and 6) the SVPA does not violate due process, double jeopardy, or equal protection, and is not an ex post facto law.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/01/2013
• Published 03/01/2013

Judges

• MOORE,

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel