In Re Anthony C.

*1499 Opinion

Anthony C. (hereafter Anthony) appeals from the judgment of extended commitment to the California Youth Authority (CYA) 1 pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 1800 et seq. 2 That scheme allows for a two-year extension of a CYA commitment if a jury finds that upon discharge, the ward “would be physically dangerous to the public because of [the ward’s] mental or physical deficiency, disorder, or abnormality. . . .” (§ 1801.)

The jury was instructed, consistent with the constitutional requirements of In re Howard N. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 117 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 866 , 106 P.3d 305 ] (Howard N.) and People v. Williams (2003) 31 Cal.4th 757 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 684 , 74 P.3d 779 ] (Williams), that to find Anthony physically dangerous within the meaning of section 1800 it must find his mental disorder makes it likely, i.e., “presents a substantial danger,” that he will commit future sexually criminal acts.

On appeal, Anthony challenges his order of commitment on the grounds the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove he has serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior. He also raises constitutional challenges, errors in the pleadings and at the probable…

I concur in parts I and II of the majority opinion, where the majority concludes Anthony’s commitment was not supported by substantial evidence. I respectfully dissent from part III of the majority opinion, which concludes that a retrial in this case is barred.

I agree with the majority’s analysis and conclusion that, ordinarily, double jeopardy would not bar a retrial because this proceeding is a civil proceeding and double jeopardy does not bar a retrial in a civil proceeding.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that retrial is barred by Welfare and Institutions Code section 1801.5. 1 The majority concludes, “The language of section 1801.5 is clear and unambiguous.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1510.) I respectfully disagree. Construed as a whole, I think section 1801.5 is ambiguous and the legislative history indicates the Legislature did not intend to impose double jeopardy principles on these civil proceedings.

Section 1801.5 states in pertinent part, “The person shall be entitled to all rights guaranteed under the federal and state constitutions in criminal proceedings. A unanimous jury verdict shall be required in any jury trial. As to either a court or a…

BLEASE, Acting P.J.

Anthony C. (hereafter Anthony) appeals from the judgment of extended commitment to the California Youth Authority (CYA) [1] pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 1800 et seq. [2] That scheme allows for a two-year extension of a CYA commitment if a jury finds that upon discharge, the ward "would be physically dangerous to the public because of [the ward's] mental or physical deficiency, disorder, or abnormality...." (§ 1801.)

The jury was instructed, consistent with the constitutional requirements of In re Howard N. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 117 , 24 Cal. Rptr.3d 866 , 106 P.3d 305 ( Howard N. ) and People v. Williams (2003) 31 Cal.4th 757 , 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 684 , 74 P.3d 779 ( Williams ), that to find Anthony physically dangerous within the meaning of section 1800 it must find his mental disorder makes it likely, i.e., "presents a substantial danger," that he will commit future sexually criminal acts.

On appeal, Anthony challenges his order of commitment on the grounds the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove he has serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior. He also raises constitutional challenges, errors in the pleadings and at the…