Opinion ID: 1058936
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Butler v. Commonwealth

Text: Orlando Lawarren Butler (Butler) was convicted of aggravated sexual battery on April 12, 2001 and was sentenced by the Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake to serve ten years of incarceration with seven years suspended. Pursuant to the SVPA, the Attorney General filed a petition seeking Butler's civil commitment in lieu of his release on August 22, 2003. Pursuant to Code § 37.1-70.7, the trial court found probable cause existed that Butler is a sexually violent predator under the SVPA and set the matter for trial before a jury. Prior to trial, Butler filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the SVPA violates both the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia. The trial court denied Butler's motion to dismiss and Butler properly noted his objection. On March 11, 2004, a jury unanimously found by clear and convincing evidence that Butler was a sexually violent predator. On April 6, the trial court held a hearing to determine whether Butler should be civilly committed or conditionally released, and, on May 21, entered its final order that Butler be civilly committed. Butler filed a timely petition for appeal, which we granted. Butler's only assignment of error is that the SVPA is unconstitutional. Butler advances four arguments in support of this contention: (1) the SVPA fails to require an independent finding of a serious difficulty in controlling behavior and thus violates substantive due process; (2) the SVPA fails to meet the threshold standard required for the minimum degree of difficulty required by substantive due process with respect to lack of control as [a] symptom of the mental abnormality or personality disorder for which the subject individual is diagnosed; (3) the SVPA is not definite and precise in its meaning and can be interpreted and applied in different ways and therefore it is void for vagueness; and (4) the SVPA fails to comport with the notions of due process as it does not meet the requirements of [ Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 122 S.Ct. 867, 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002)], it is not a civil confinement statute and therefore is void as unconstitutional under the doctrines of ex post facto and double jeopardy.