People v. Superior Court (Waitley)

Opinion

POCHÉ, J.

These two proceedings present a single question: whether equal protection entitles mentally disordered sex offenders (MDSOs) to a reduction of their maximum term of commitment by conduct credits for precommitment and midcommitment custody. We hold it does not.

[41]

Facts

In each case the defendant, having been found guilty of a sex related crime, was found to be a MDSO amenable to treatment and was committed to Atascadero State Hospital. Near the end of each defendant’s term, the People petitioned for a hearing to determine whether the defendant’s commitment should be extended pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6316.2, subdivision (a)(2).

1

Each defendant challenged the petition as untimely under section 6316.2, subdivision (b).

2

The argument presented was that good conduct credits “earned” in jail prior to and during commitment should be applied to the maximum term of commitment.

3

If such credits were applied, the petitions would not meet the requirement of section 6316.2, subdivision (b) that they be filed “no later than 90 days before the expiration of the original commitment.”

[42]

In each case, the superior court agreed and dismissed as untimely the petition for extended commitment. The People brought these original proceedings seeking writs of mandamus ordering the respondent superi- or courts to set aside their orders.

Each defendant points out that had he been sentenced to prison he would have received a reduction in his term for good behavior in jail prior to sentencing (Pen. Code, §§ 2930-2932;