Did Prop 83 Eliminate The SVP Extended Commitment Scheme?

In November 2006, the voters enacted Prop 83, which substantially amended the state's sexually violent predator (SVP) civil commitment law, which had also recently been amended by the Legislature in September 2006. Under the old law, commitments were two years in duration. At the conclusion of the two-year commitment, the government had to prove once again beyond a reasonable doubt that the person met the commitment criteria. Upon such a showing, the person was then committed for another two-year period subject to the same recommitment scheme every two years. Prop 83, however, eliminated this recommitment scheme and replaced it with a framework whereby the initial commitment would be for an indeterminate period of time, thus obviating the need for recommitment trials. Instead, in order for an SVP to gain release after Prop 83, the burden is now on the SVP to request a hearing and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she no longer meets the commitment criteria.

In a strange oversight, however, Prop 83 completely eliminated the code section governing extended commitments. As a result, for those people committed as SVPs prior to the passage of Prop 83, there no longer exists an explicit statutory mechanism to extend their commitments. Nevertheless, district attorneys have continued to bring recommitment petitions alleging that post-Prop 83 extensions should be for indeterminate terms. The SVPs facing these extended commitment petitions have, in turn, brought a bevy of dismissal motions, arguing that the framework's omission of a recommitment scheme post-Prop 83 requires their release. Not surprisingly, two Courts of Appeal have recently decided the electorate did not intend for all SVPs committed prior to the adoption of Prop 83 to be released.

In Bourquez v. Superior Court (C055402), the Third District Court of Appeal held that "[b]y changing the terms of commitment under the SVPA from two-year terms to indefinite terms, the Legislature and then the voters demonstrated an intent to keep those found to be sexually violent predators (SVPs) committed until they no longer meet the definition of an SVP. From the very purpose of the amendment of the SVPA, a saving clause is implied. Under the implied saving clause, the superior court has jurisdiction to proceed on the petitions to extend petitioners' commitments. Under the provisions of the SVPA, as amended by SB 1128 and by Proposition 83, the petitions to extend commitment are petitions for indefinite commitment."

Similarly, in People v. Shields (D050034), Division One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected the SVP's assertion that "the court had no jurisdiction to find him to be an SVP and recommit him because [Welfare and Institution Code] section 6604' s two-year commitment procedure has been eliminated and the amended SVP statute fails to expressly refer to persons already confined for two-year terms under former section 6604. We reject this contention because Shields's proposed statutory interpretation is contrary to the clear legislative intent."

A petition for review was filed in the California Supreme Court on October 31, 2007 in Shields and is currently pending.