P. v. Lyles
Carnot Andre Lyles appeals from an order recommitting him for an indeterminate term to the custody of the State Department of Mental Health (DMH), after a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600, subdivision (a)[1]of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). Appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motions to dismiss the petition for recommitment, (2) the trial court erred in limiting the number of peremptory challenges, (3) the trial court improperly denied appellants challenges to jurors for cause, (4) the trial court erred in allowing the victim of appellants 1988 sexual assault to testify, (5) introduction of that victims testimony was prosecutorial misconduct, (6) the evidence was insufficient to support the jurys finding that appellant was an SVP, (7) the trial court erred in applying the SVPA as revised in 2006[2]retroactively to appellants case, (8) appellants indeterminate commitment under the revised SVPA violates (a) the ex post facto clause, (b) due process, by placing the burden on him to prove that he should be released, (c) due process, by failing to provide mandatory periodic hearings to determine whether continued commitment is warranted, (d) the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, (e) the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by providing limited periodic judicial review of his custodial status as compared with other civil commitment statutes, and (f) the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the California Constitution and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution, (9) the limitations placed by the revised SVPA on the right to petition the court for release violates the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances, (10) Proposition 83 violates the single subject rule applicable to ballot initiatives, and (11) the cumulative effect of the errors was prejudicial to appellant and requires reversal of the commitment and imposition of a two year commitment and subsequent dismissal. Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Lyles