P. v. Barbour
Defendant Robert Sean Barbour originally challenged, on due process and equal protection grounds, the constitutionality of his indeterminate commitment pursuant to Proposition 83, which modified the terms by which sexually violent predators (SVP’s) can be released from civil commitment under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.; unless otherwise stated, all statutory references that follow are to the Welfare and Institutions Code). In an unpublished opinion based on the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172 (McKee I), we found no due process violation and we remanded the matter to the trial court to determine whether, under the equal protection clause, the People could justify treating SVP’s differently than mentally disordered offenders (MDO’s) and persons committed after being found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI’s) since no evidence was introduced in the trial court on the equal protection issue. (People v. Barbour (May 6, 2010, C061291) [nonpub. opn].)
The Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition for review with directions to us to vacate our unpublished decision. To avoid duplicating remand proceedings already ordered in McKee I, which allowed the People an opportunity to justify treating SVP’s, MDO’s and NGI’s differently under established equal protection principles, the Supreme Court also suspended further proceedings in defendant’s case pending finality of the McKee I remand proceedings.
Comments on P. v. Barbour