P. v. Milinich
Defendant challenges the constitutionality of his commitment to the Department of Mental Health (DMH) for an indeterminate term under the recently amended Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6604 et seq.)[1] He argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to extend his commitment, and applied the revised provisions of the SVPA to his case retroactively; the indeterminate commitment violates due process, because it places the burden on him to prove he is no longer a sexually violent predator, and fails to provide for mandatory periodic review hearings on the question whether continued commitment is warranted. He also argues that indeterminate commitment violates the prohibitions against ex post facto laws, double jeopardy and cruel and unusual punishment; that the combination of indeterminate commitment with limited judicial review violates the equal protection clause; and that the limits on judicial review violate his First Amendment right to petition the court for redress of grievances, and that Proposition 83 violated the singe subject rule for initiatives. Finally, he argues that his commitment should be reduced to two years because he has been prejudiced. Court reject these arguments and affirm the courts order committing defendant to the DMH.
Comments on P. v. Milinich