People v. Pipkin
27 Cal. App. 5th 1146
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Ralph Pipkin was designated an MDO (Mentally Disordered Offender) and committed to Atascadero State Hospital as a condition of parole after a 2009 felony grand theft conviction; parole was to expire Oct. 13, 2014.
- The DA filed successive section 2970 petitions to recommit Pipkin for one-year periods ending Oct. 13, 2015 and Oct. 13, 2016; Pipkin stipulated to the first extension but challenged the second after Proposition 47 reduced his qualifying felony to a misdemeanor.
- On Aug. 24, 2015 Pipkin moved to dismiss the recommitment petition arguing Proposition 47’s "misdemeanor for all purposes" provision meant he no longer qualified for MDO recommitment; the trial court denied the motion and granted recommitment to Oct. 13, 2016.
- Pipkin appealed; while the appeal was pending his recommitment expired on Oct. 13, 2016 and the DA did not seek another extension.
- The appellate court recognized the constitutional liberty interests implicated by involuntary MDO commitment but dismissed the appeal as moot because no effective relief could be granted given expiration and no further recommitment petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Proposition 47’s reduction of a qualifying felony to a misdemeanor invalidates a later MDO recommitment when the initial MDO commitment was valid | Pipkin: Proposition 47 makes the prior conviction a "misdemeanor for all purposes," so he no longer meets the statutory criteria for MDO recommitment and must be released | DA/People: Recommitment rests on the offender’s current mental state and dangerousness; static foundational factors established at initial commitment need not be relitigated at recommitment, so redesignation does not preclude recommitment | Court did not decide the merits; dismissed appeal as moot because Pipkin’s commitment expired and no further petition was filed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 1055 (describing the six section 2962 criteria and distinguishing static vs. changeable factors)
- People v. Harrison, 57 Cal.4th 1211 (discussing MDO Act standards and liberty interests in civil commitment)
- In re Smith, 42 Cal.4th 1251 (holding civil commitment invalid if the qualifying conviction is reversed)
- People v. Goodrich, 7 Cal.App.5th 699 (concluding Proposition 47 redesignation does not preclude MDO recommitment)
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (holding Proposition 47’s "misdemeanor for all purposes" provision operates prospectively for new collateral consequences)
- Building a Better Redondo, Inc. v. City of Redondo Beach, 203 Cal.App.4th 852 (articulating discretionary exception to mootness for issues likely to recur)