Late-Filed Civil Commitment Petition Requires Dismissal

California Penal Code section 2960 et seq. provides for the civil commitment of certain mentally disordered offenders (MDOs) during and after their parole period. The MDO Act contains a number of statutorily created deadlines that govern the original commitment and extended commitment proceedings.

In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court today ruled that Penal Code section 2972's requirement that an extended commitment petition must be filed prior to the expiration of an MDO's most recent commitment was mandatory. Therefore, in this case, the district attorney's failure to file such a timely petition deprived the trial court of jurisdiction and required dismissal of the MDO extended commitment petition.

In so ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the Attorney General's contention that even if the filing deadline were mandatory, the trial court need only dismiss the petition if, under the particular facts of a given case, the missed filing deadline violated the MDO's due process rights. As the Supreme Court acknowledged, however, "determining whether an MDO’s due process rights were violated by a delayed petition would often be futile" because "more often than not, an MDO would be unable to show prejudice if his or her mental disorder is not in remission." Therefore, the mere fact that the MDO would have been recommitted anyway because he continued to suffer from his severe mental disorder did not render the denial of his right to annual review under the MDO Act non-prejudicial.

Justice Chin authored the Court's opinion.

People v Allen, no. S141913 (Cal. Supreme Ct., filed 8/13/07)