Opinion ID: 2809817
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The SVPA and Other California Civil Commitment

Text: Laws California has enacted a set of civil commitment statutes that are triggered only after criminal charges have been filed. Hubbart v. Superior Court, 969 P.2d 584, 587 (Cal. 1999). The SVPA, which is one such statute, reflects the California legislature’s “concern over a select group of criminal offenders who are extremely dangerous as the result of mental impairment, and who are likely to continue committing acts of sexual violence even after they have been punished for such crimes.” Id. The state may file a petition to civilly commit a person as a sexually violent predator (“SVP”) if that individual (1) has been convicted of a SEEBOTH V. ALLENBY 5 sexually violent offense against one or more victims and (2) suffers from a diagnosed mental disorder that makes it likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior in the future.1 Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600(a)(1). The SVPA then provides for a probable cause hearing and a jury trial, at which the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual meets those criteria. Id. §§ 6602–6603; People v. McKee, 223 P.3d 566, 574–75 (Cal. 2010). In its original form, the SVPA provided for commitment for two-year terms. Orozco v. Superior Court, 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 573, 578 (Ct. App. 2004). At the end of each term, and after a new trial, the individual could be recommitted. Id. at 578–79. In November 2006, California adopted Proposition 83, which “changed the commitment term for SVPs from renewable two-year periods to an indeterminate period.” Seeboth v. Mayberg, 659 F.3d 945, 947 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, for individuals committed or recommitted after 2006, there is no need for future recommitment proceedings. See Bourquez v. Superior Court, 68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 142, 144 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding that pending petitions for two-year extensions would be considered petitions for indefinite terms). Proposition 83 also changed the substantive requirements for civil commitment under the SVPA. Before 2006, the SVPA authorized civil commitment only if the person had been convicted of sexually violent offenses against two or more victims. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 1 The state may file a commitment petition under the SVPA only while the individual is in custody pursuant to a determinate prison term, as a result of a parole revocation term, or under a special SVPA “hold” that temporarily extends a term of imprisonment or parole. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6601(a)(2). 6 SEEBOTH V. ALLENBY § 6600(a) (1996). After Proposition 83, only one victim was required. 2006 Cal. Legis. Serv. Prop. 83 (West). An individual also may be committed as a mentally disordered offender (“MDO”). To be committed as an MDO, a person must (1) stand convicted of a crime involving force, violence, or serious bodily injury; and (2) have a severe mental disorder that was a cause of, or an aggravating factor in, the commission of that crime. Cal. Penal Code § 2962; People v. Collins, 12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 768, 770 (Ct. App. 1992). Finally, California law authorizes the civil commitment of an individual who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGI”). In California, the question of sanity is determined separately, after a conviction. Cal. Penal Code § 1026(a); In re Moye, 584 P.2d 1097, 1100 (Cal. 1978). If the individual was insane at the time of the offense and has not regained sanity, the court may commit the person for up to the maximum term of the sentence that could have been imposed for the crime. Moye, 584 P.2d at 1100. Civil commitment may extend beyond the period of that maximum sentence if (1) the person was convicted of a felony and (2) the person represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others by reason of a mental disease, defect, or disorder. Cal. Penal Code § 1026(b)(1).