|
California Criminal Law Reporter |
||||||
|
|
| NOTICE TO
SUBSCRIBERS: Persons who receive copies of the newsletters should be
advised that the newsletters are part of an indexed volume and that is maintained in the
publisher's Internet library. While every effort is made to insure accuracy,
readers should of course consult the full opinion of the court before
relying on the digest published herein.
CALIFORNIA CASES
Defendant forfeited the issue of suitability for outpatient treatment as an MDO by failing to raise the issue at the recommitment hearing. (538) (892) Defendant, who was determined to be a mentally disordered offender argued the trial court erred in failing to exercise its discretion to determine whether he could be safely and effectively treated on an outpatient basis under Penal Code section 2972, subd.(d). However, defendant forfeited the claim by failing to raise it at the recommitment hearing and the trial court had no sua sponte duty to make the determination. Assuming the court had such a duty, defendant did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding that he could be safely and effectively treated on an outpatient basis. People v. Rish, ____ Cal.App.4th ____, ____ Cal.Rptr.3d ____, 2008 D.A.R 8901, 2nd Dist., 2005, June 16, 2008 |
The information was dismissed for lack of good cause to continue the preliminary hearing where the delay was caused by the failure to transport defendant to court. (524) Penal Code section 861 gives the accused a right to continuous preliminary hearing. Defendant waived that right and agreed to continue the hearing to a particular date. The assigned prosecutor was sick on the scheduled date and defendant was not transported from the jail. The hearing took place several days later and defendant was bound over. The information was dismissed because the delay in reconvening the preliminary hearing was caused by the failure to transport defendant to court and there was not good cause shown for the delay. Kruse v. Superior Court, ____ Cal.App.4th ____, ____ Cal.Rptr.3d ____, 2008 D.A.R 7147, 3rd Dist., 2005, May 15, 2008 Amended SVP act does not punish and therefore does not violate ex post facto provisions. (522) The amended SVP act which provides for an indeterminate term does not render the law punitive. It therefore does not violate ex post facto principles. People v. Riffey, ____ Cal.App.4th ____, ____ Cal.Rptr.3d ____, 2008 D.A.R 7807, 3rd Dist., 2005, May 28, 2008 Amended SVP act was not applied retroactively where the determination made at the initial commitment hearing in 2007 was that defendant was an SVP at that time. (522) Defendant argued the trial court erred in retroactively applying the amended SVP act to his case. However, the determination made at the initial hearing in April 2007 was that defendant was an SVP at the time. In light of this fact, the court’s application to defendant of the then-current version of the SVP act, which called for an indeterminate term of commitment, was not a retroactive application of the law. People v. Riffey, ____ Cal.App.4th ____, ____ Cal.Rptr.3d ____, 2008 D.A.R 7807, 3rd Dist., 2005, May 28, 2008 Amended SVP act did not violate equal protection as SVPs are not similarly situated to persons involuntarily committed under other laws. (522) Application of the amended SVP law did not violate equal protection principles because persons committed under that law are not similarly situated to persons committed under the Mentally Disordered Offenders Act, or not guilty by reason of insanity acquittees. People v. Riffey, ____ Cal.App.4th ____, ____ Cal.Rptr.3d ____, 2008 D.A.R 7807, 3rd Dist., 2005, May 28, 2008 |
Send mail to
feedback@caclr.com with questions or
comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2001 California Criminal Law Reporter (800) 448-3991