The People v. Robledo CA6

Discussion A. Equal Protection Appellant maintains that persons committed under the SVPA are similarly situated to persons committed as mentally disordered offenders (MDO's) and persons initially committed after being found guilty by reason of insanity whose commitments are extended (NGI's). He argues that the Act denies equal protection of the law because it

2 provides for an indeterminate term of commitment and imposes a greater burden of proof for obtaining release as compared to those other statutory schemes. In People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172 (McKee), the California Supreme Court recognized that persons civilly committed as MDO's or NGI's are subject to short, definite terms of commitment whereas persons found to be SVP's are committed to an indeterminate term of commitment. (People v. McKee, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 1202, 1207.) The court concluded that SVP's were similarly situated to these other groups of committees. (Id. at pp. 1204, 1207.) It remanded the matter to the trial court "to determine whether the People . . . can demonstrate the constitutional justification for imposing on SVP's a greater burden than is imposed on…