People v. Roddan CA3

Filed 5/13/15 P. v. Roddan CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C075789

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18392C)

v.

BRIAN RODDAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

On March 12, 2010, defendant Brian Roddan was found to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) within the meaning of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.)1 and was committed for an indeterminate term to the State Department of Mental Health (now designated as State Department of State Hospitals). He appealed (C064635), contending the indefinite commitment violated his constitutional due process and equal protection rights and the guarantees against double jeopardy and ex post facto laws. We rejected all but the equal protection claim because the California

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

Supreme Court’s decision in People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172 (McKee I) expressly rejected the due process and ex post facto claims and effectively rejected the double jeopardy argument by finding the SVPA was nonpunitive. (Id. at pp. 1193-1195.) As to equal protection, McKee I held that SVP’s were similarly situated to mentally disordered offenders (MDO’s) and to persons found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI’s) regarding the length of their commitments (one year for MDO’s, two years for NGI’s). (McKee I, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 1203-1207.) McKee I remanded the matter to the San Diego Superior Court to afford the People the opportunity to justify the disparate treatment, a point which had not been addressed by the trial court. (Id. at pp. 1208-1211.) In conformity with the Supreme Court’s directive in McKee I, we reversed our judgment in defendant’s appeal, remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to reconsider defendant’s equal protection argument but only after the resolution of defendant McKee’s case in the San Diego Superior Court had become final. The San Diego Superior Court conducted an evidentiary hearing and concluded the People had justified the disparate treatment and that determination was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in People v. McKee (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1325 (McKee II). McKee II “conclude[d] the trial court correctly found the People presented substantial evidence to support a reasonable perception by the electorate that SVP’s present a substantially greater danger to society than do MDO’s or NGI’s, and therefore the disparate treatment of SVP’s under the Act is necessary to further the People’s compelling interests of public safety and humane treatment of the mentally disordered.” (McKee II, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1330-1331.) McKee II became final on October 10, 2012, when the California Supreme Court denied review (S162823). On December 16, 2013, the trial court reinstated its March 12, 2010 order committing defendant to the State Department of State Hospitals for an indeterminate period.