67 Cal.App.5th 209
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant Jose Nolasco has a lifelong developmental disability and a co-occurring major depressive disorder with psychotic features.
- He was found incompetent to stand trial on a felony resisting charge; criminal proceedings were terminated after two years without restored competency.
- The People obtained an initial civil commitment under Welf. & Inst. Code § 6500 (developmental disability) after an August 20, 2019 hearing; commitment was for one year.
- The People petitioned for recommitment; after an October 13, 2020 hearing the court found Nolasco remained dangerous and ordered recommitment for one year, expiring October 13, 2021.
- Nolasco appealed, arguing the § 6500 recommitment end date (anniversary of recommitment order) gives less favorable treatment than a Murphy conservatorship under the LPS Act (which ties renewals to the anniversary of the initial commitment), and hence violates equal protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Nolasco) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the differing one-year recommitment end dates for § 6500 commitments (anniversary of recommitment order) versus Murphy conservatorships (anniversary of initial commitment) violate equal protection | The difference is justified: developmental disabilities differ from mental illness (less likely to remit), so tying Murphy conservatorship dates to the initial commitment is rational; Barrett governs and rational-basis review applies | The differential dates disadvantage similarly situated persons; People can choose the statute to obtain a longer detention, so the scheme discriminates without justification | Affirmed. Court applies rational-basis scrutiny (following Barrett) and upholds § 6500 timetable as rationally related to legislative purpose given differences between developmental disabilities and mental illness |
| Whether the claim was forfeited by failure to raise equal protection below | Forfeiture argued, but People did not assert it as a barrier to review | Nolasco contended the issue could not have been remedied below | Court exercised discretion to reach the claim on the merits despite forfeiture but rejected it on substantive grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Barrett, 54 Cal.4th 1081 (2012) (applied rational-basis review to differences between § 6500 and LPS Act procedures regarding jury advisement/waiver)
- People v. McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (2010) (discussed scrutiny levels for distinctions among commitment schemes)
- Conservatorship of Hofferber, 28 Cal.3d 161 (1980) (legislature may adopt multiple procedures for committing dangerous persons)
- In re Qawi, 32 Cal.4th 1 (2004) (characterization of mental illness and its effects on functioning)
- People v. Turnage, 55 Cal.4th 62 (2012) (describing rational-basis standard in this context)
- United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979) (government's choice among statutes does not by itself create equal protection violation)
- Conservatorship of John L., 48 Cal.4th 131 (2010) (LPS Act governs involuntary detention/treatment for mental disorder)