1 Cal. App. 5th 1058
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Thomas Putney previously pleaded no contest in 1991 to multiple counts of lewd acts on a child and was later committed twice as an SVP for two-year terms (2003 and 2005). A recommitment petition for an indeterminate term was filed in July 2007.
- The recommitment trial was delayed repeatedly and did not start until April 2014; in the interim Putney was convicted (no contest) of possession of a dirk and dagger at Coalinga State Hospital, admitted three strike priors, and was sentenced in January 2011 to 25 years to life; that criminal judgment became final in September 2012.
- The trial court proceeded to jury trial in 2014, the jury found Putney to be an SVP, and the court ordered recommitment to the State Department of State Hospitals for an indeterminate term.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal considered whether the trial court had authority to recommit Putney given his long, unexpired criminal sentence, and requested supplemental briefing on that issue.
- The Court concluded the trial court lacked authority to recommit Putney after his criminal sentence became final because the SVPA’s purpose and text require the person pose a danger upon release to the community and provide mechanisms for review/release that are meaningless for someone with a long prison term remaining.
- The Court reversed the recommitment order and directed dismissal of the recommitment petition; it noted the People could file a new petition if Putney later approaches release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether recommitment under the SVPA was permissible despite Putney’s intervening long criminal sentence | SVPA permits recommitment; petition was properly filed before expiration of the prior two-year term and may proceed despite an intervening sentence | Once a criminal sentence is final and the prisoner has no realistic prospect of release for many years, he poses no danger to the public upon release and cannot be an SVP; court lacks authority to commit | Court held recommitment was improper after the criminal sentence became final; dismissal ordered |
| Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction or authority to grant SVP relief after the criminal judgment became final | No statutory bar; the proceeding could continue and courts have power to adjudicate post-Proposition 83 recommitment petitions | SVPA’s definition and procedures presume risk of release; civil commitment of someone with a long imprisoning sentence is inconsistent with SVPA and statutory review mechanisms | Court held the court exceeded its jurisdiction/authority to grant the requested relief once sentence was final |
| Whether dual status (prisoner + SVP) or placement/treatment concerns justify recommitment during long prison term | Dual commitment/placement at state hospital or prison could address treatment and be administratively feasible | Placement/treatment needs of prisoners can be met under Penal Code transfer provisions without SVP commitment; dual commitment conflicts with SVPA’s purpose | Court rejected dual-commitment justification and held treatment needs don’t authorize SVP recommitment in these circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (recognizes Proposition 83’s change from fixed two-year SVP terms to indeterminate commitments)
- People v. Castillo, 49 Cal.4th 145 (discusses SVPA authority post-Proposition 83 and due process considerations)
- People v. Ghilotti, 27 Cal.4th 888 (SVPA interpretation and courts’ authority inherent in scheme)
- Hubbart v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1138 (commitment cannot result in confinement longer than mental abnormality warrants)
- People v. Watson, 42 Cal.4th 822 (distinguishes prison transfers for treatment from commitment as SVP)
- People v. Sanders, 55 Cal.4th 731 (SVPA’s purposes and limitations referenced)
- People v. Yartz, 37 Cal.4th 529 (SVP civil-commitment begins upon release and statutory framework for SVPA proceedings)