P. v. Garcia
The jury returned a finding that defendant is a sexually violent predator (SVP) as defined in the Sexually Violent Predator Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) (the Act),[1] and the trial court imposed an involuntary civil commitment upon him for an indeterminate period. In this appeal defendant argues that the trial court erred by admitting testimony on the nature of treatment received by committed sexually violent predators (SVP’s), and complains that he was committed on the basis of invalid evaluation regulations. He also claims that the Act, as amended by Proposition 83 in 2006, violates due process, ex post facto, double jeopardy and equal protection principles.
We find no error in the admission of relevant testimony that described the treatment of SVP’s. We further conclude that reliance on invalid regulations during the evaluation process of defendant did not result in prejudice to him. We conclude that in accordance with the California Supreme Court’s opinion in People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172 (McKee I), the current version of the Act does not contravene due process, ex post facto or double jeopardy considerations. Defendant established disparate treatment of SVP’s for equal protection purposes, but pursuant to the discussion in People v. McKee (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1325 (McKee II), constitutional justification for the distinction exists. We therefore affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Garcia