SVP Recommitments and Indeterminate Terms, Take 2

As noted in a previous post, two California appellate courts recently concluded that individuals subject to two-year sexually violent predator (SVP) civil commitments at the time the electorate passed Prop 83 can face the prospect of indeterminate terms upon expiration of their current commitments. In People v. Carroll (F051709), the Fifth District Court of Appeal has reached the same result, noting that to hold otherwise would lead to "absurd consequences." In addition, California Supreme Court recently denied review on this question in People v. Shields.

In Carroll, the Fifth Disrtict Court of Appeal also fended off a few related challenges. The district attorney in that case filed an extended commitment petition before the SVP Act was amended to provide for indeterminate terms. Therefore, the commitment petition sought to impose a two-year commitment. By the time the commitment trial commenced several months later trial, the SVP Act had been amended to provide for indeterminate terms. At that time, the district attorney announced that an indeterminate term would be sought rather than the two-year term identified in the petition. After a court trial, the defendant was committed as an SVP for an indeterminate term. The Fifth District Court of Appeal concluded that the defendant waived any objection to the amendment of the petition by failing to object.

The Court of Appeal did, however, reject two of the defendant's challenges to the petition on the merits. First, the Court of Appeal dispensed with the defendant's due process challenge to the adequacy of the notice he was given on the merits, noting that the "allegations against which Carroll needed to be prepared to defend – most importantly, that he continued to have a current diagnosable mental disorder, by reason of which he was likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior in the future – were unaffected by the amendment."

In addition, the Court of Appeal held that because the petition was amended and the trial occurred after the indeterminate term provisions took effect utilization of the newly-added indeterminate term provisions of the SVP Act did not constitute an impermissible retroactive application of the statute.

The unanimous opinion was authored by Presiding Justice James A. Ardaiz.

People v. Carroll, no. F051709 (Cal.Ct.App. (5th Dist.) filed 12/27/07)