223 Cal. App. 4th 544
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2009 a jury found Richard Kisling a sexually violent predator (SVP) and the trial court ordered indeterminate commitment under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA).
- Kisling appealed raising due process, ex post facto, and equal protection challenges to the indeterminate commitment.
- The California Supreme Court decided People v. McKee (McKee I), rejecting most challenges but remanding for an evidentiary hearing on equal protection to allow the People to justify disparate treatment of SVPs vs. MDOs/NGIs.
- This court (Kisling) vacated and stayed further proceedings pending the McKee I remand results; the San Diego trial court held an evidentiary hearing and the Fourth Appellate District affirmed that the People met their burden (People v. McKee, McKee II).
- After McKee II became final, the Sacramento trial court refused Kisling’s request for a new equal protection hearing, relying on Auto Equity and McKee II; Kisling appeals that refusal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kisling is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on equal protection despite McKee II | People: McKee II resolving the classwide justification for disparate SVP treatment binds trial courts; no new hearing needed | Kisling: McKee II is not binding here; due process requires his individual opportunity to present proof; McKee II used incorrect review standard | Court: McKee I remand was intended to resolve classwide justification; McKee II’s adverse determination forecloses a new hearing in Kisling’s case; order affirmed |
| Whether horizontal stare decisis prevents relying on McKee II | People: Supreme Court intended a single, classwide resolution; courts should follow McKee II outcomes to avoid multiplicity | Kisling: Court of Appeal decisions are not binding on other panels; McKee II does not control | Court: Although not strictly bound, following McKee II aligns with Supreme Court intent and avoids duplicative proceedings; decision followed |
| Whether other constitutional claims (due process, ex post facto, double jeopardy) merit relitigation | People: Those claims were rejected in McKee I and need not be relitigated | Kisling: Raises them for potential federal review; requests consideration | Court: Treats issues as raised and rejects them consistent with McKee I |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (California Supreme Court) (remanded for evidentiary hearing on equal protection justification)
- People v. McKee, 207 Cal.App.4th 1325 (Cal. Ct. App.) (affirming trial court’s finding that the People justified disparate treatment of SVPs)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (California Supreme Court) (trial courts generally follow final appellate determinations to avoid relitigation)