People v. Rodriguez CA6
Opinion
Opinion
BACKGROUND
On July 24, 2003, defendant was convicted of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and assault with intent to commit a lewd or lascivious act on a child (Pen. Code, § 220). Subsequently, on December 24, 2007, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a petition to involuntarily commit defendant as an SVP. On June 10, 2013, the trial court found the petition to be true, and it ordered defendant to be committed for an indeterminate term.
DISCUSSION
The SVP Act mandates commitment “for an indeterminate term” when an individual is found to be an SVP. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604.) Defendant contends that his indeterminate commitment under the SVP Act violates his right to equal protection of the laws because other civilly committed individuals—namely, mentally disordered offenders (MDO’s) and those found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI’s)—are committed for determinate periods. This issue has been widely litigated. It reached the California Supreme Court in People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172 (McKee I). In McKee I, the defendant argued that indeterminate commitment under the SVP Act violates equal protection…