P. v. Sullivan
Defendant Manse Sullivan appeals from an order committing him to an indeterminate term of commitment (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6604.1, subd. (a))[1] as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) ( 6600 et seq.). On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court: (1) erred by granting the prosecutors request for a continuance, and then dismissing the first jury panel; (2) lacked jurisdiction to extend his commitment; and (3) erred in applying the SVPA retroactively to his case. Defendant also challenges the constitutionality of the SVPA, as amended in 2006, on due process, ex post facto, double jeopardy, cruel and/or unusual punishment, equal protection, First Amendment, and single subject grounds. Court reject these contentions and affirm the order.
Comments on P. v. Sullivan