P. v. Champagne
Alvin Champagne, a sexually violent predator, challenges his commitment to an indeterminate term on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence, lack of trial court jurisdiction, impermissible retroactive application of an amended statute, cruel and/or unusual punishment, violations of the single subject rule, his constitutional rights to access to the courts, due process, double jeopardy, and equal protection, and violation of his constitutional right against ex post facto laws. Court affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Champagne