People v. McCloud
213 Cal. App. 4th 1076
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- McCloud appeals after a jury found him to be an SVP and the trial court committed him to DMH for an indeterminate period under the SVPA.
- McCloud challenges two SVPA provisions: (a) indeterminate commitments with the SVP bears burden to prove not still an SVP if DMH opposes release, and (b) dismissal of a frivolous petition for release without a hearing.
- He also argues the jury’s SVP finding lacks sufficient evidence.
- California courts had previously held in McKee I that due process was not violated and the equal protection challenges to indeterminate terms were unavailing; McKee II affirmed the equal protection rationale with additional remand-driven analysis.
- The appellate court affirms the commitment but remands to address McCloud’s equal protection challenge to section 6608, subdivision (a).
- Trial evidence included expert testimony diagnosing paraphilia NOS and antisocial personality disorder, risk assessments, and corroborating behavioral history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indeterminate commitment and burden of proof | McCloud | McKee I/DMH | No due process violation; upheld |
| Equal protection of SVP vs MDO/NGI | McCloud | McKee I/II | Not meritorious; retained except remand on 6608(a) |
| Section 6608(a) frivolous-petition dismissal and equal protection | McCloud | People | Remanded for full briefing on equal protection |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support SVP finding | McCloud | People | Substantial evidence supported the verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2010) (upheld equal protection/indeterminate-commitment rulings under SVPA)
- People v. McKee, 207 Cal.App.4th 1325 (Cal. App. 2012) (remand/affirmed equal protection justification for SVP distinctions)