California Court of Appeal

Defendant's commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) is affirmed, where: 1) the SVPA's provisions for indeterminate commitment and for placing the burden on the SVP to obtain release do not violate the equal protection rights of the person named in the SVPA petition; 2) McKee II's holdings extend to the entire class of suspected SVP's; 3) McKee II applied both the correct standard of appellate review and the equal protection strict scrutiny standard; 4) commitment to an indeterminate term under the SVPA does not violate due process, is not an ex post facto law, and does not constitute cruel and/or unusual punishment; 5) commitment under the SVPA does not constitute double jeopardy; 6) Proposition 83, the ballot initiative which amended the SVPA to provide for indeterminate periods of commitment, did not violate the single-subject rule; and 7) defendant's waiver of his right to be present in person at trial was lawful.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/28/2013
• Published 03/28/2013

Judges

• FYBEL

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel