People V. McKee

511 Citing cases

  1. People v. McKee

    207 Cal.App.4th 1325 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 182 times
    In People v. McKee (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1325 (McKee II), the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's subsequent finding that the disparate treatment of SVP's was justified.

    , J. Richard McKee appeals an order entered by the trial court on remand after the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 427, 223 P.3d 566( McKee ). Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court confirmed McKee's indeterminate term civil commitment as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 6600 et seq., Act or SVP Act),

  2. People v. Curlee

    237 Cal.App.4th 709 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 47 times
    In Curlee, Division Four of this court pointed out that our Supreme Court in McKee had found that MDO’s and SVP’s were similarly situated, for purposes of evaluating whether terms of commitment violated equal protection, because both groups had been convicted of a serious or violent felony and been found beyond a reasonable doubt to suffer from mental disorders that render them dangerous to others.

    Rivera, J.The Sexually Violent Predators Act (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 6600 et seq. ; (SVPA or the Act) provides for involuntary civil commitment of certain offenders who are found to be sexually violent predators (SVP's) after completing their prison terms. (People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1186–1187, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 427, 223 P.3d 566 (McKee I ).) To establish that a person is an SVP, the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender has been convicted of a qualifying sexually violent offense against one or more victims and that the offender has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes it likely the person would engage in sexually violent conduct if released.

  3. People v. McKnight

    212 Cal.App.4th 860 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 83 times
    In People v. McKnight (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 860 (McKnight),it was argued that the Supreme Court intended that the decision in McKee on remand would resolve the equal protection challenge to the SVPA only as to the individual defendant in that case.

    This case was last before us in 2010, when we considered and rejected a number of challenges to a petition to extend McKnight's commitment under the SVPA. (People v. McKnight (April 22, 2010, A123119) 2010 WL 1619562 [nonpub. opn.].) However, we remanded the case to the trial court for proceedings on McKnight's equal protection claim consistent with People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 427, 223 P.3d 566 ( McKee I ). On July 28, 2010, the Supreme Court granted the People's petition for review and transferred this case back to us with directions to vacate our decision and suspend further proceedings pending finality of the proceedings on remand in McKee I.

  4. People v. McDonald

    214 Cal.App.4th 1367 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 92 times
    Rejecting contention that McKee II erred in failing to address McKee's claim that Proposition 83's indeterminate commitment of SVP's was unconstitutional unless shown to be least restrictive means to advance compelling state interest

    Further code references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. In March 2012, we ordered further proceedings in this matter suspended until the finality of proceedings on remand in People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 427, 223 P.3d 566 (McKee I ). Division One of the Fourth Appellate District of the Court of Appeal subsequently issued its opinion in People v. McKee (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1325, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 308 (McKee II ). After the California Supreme Court denied review of McKee II, we vacated our order suspending further proceedings and invited the parties to submit supplemental letter briefs addressing the effect of McKee I and subsequent authority.

  5. People v. Boyle

    No. A117860 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2012)

    In August 2008, the California Supreme Court granted Boyle’s petition for review but deferred briefing until it issued its decision in People v. McKee, a case then pending on the state high court’s docket. In January 2010, the court issued its McKee decision, which remanded that matter to the trial court for a further hearing on the equal protection issue. (People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1208-1211 [McKee I].) In May 2010, the California Supreme Court transferred Boyle’s case back to our court with directions to vacate our July 2008 decision and reconsider the matter in light of McKeeI.

  6. People v. Dunley

    247 Cal.App.4th 1438 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 62 times
    In People v. Dunley (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1438, the court exercised its discretion to address an equal protection claim notwithstanding the defendant's failure to raise it at trial, because at the time "it would not have been unreasonable to assume that an objection would have been futile" based on existing case law contrary to the claim, "and we do not require parties to make futile objections."

    In other words, we ask at the threshold whether two classes that are different in some respects are sufficiently similar with respect to the laws in question to require the government to justify its differential treatment of these classes under those laws.” (People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1202, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 427, 223 P.3d 566 (McKee ).) In contexts other than the testimonial privilege, NGI's, SVP's and MDO's have been found similarly situated for purposes of the application of the three commitment schemes, thus requiring justification for any differential treatment.

  7. People v. Curlee

    No. A136337 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 20, 2015)

    The Sexually Violent Predators Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq. (SVPA or the Act)) provides for involuntary civil commitment of certain offenders who are found to be sexually violent predators (SVP's) after completing their prison terms. (People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1186-1187 (McKee I).) To establish that a person is an SVP, the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender has been convicted of a qualifying sexually violent offense against one or more victims and that the offender has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes it likely the person would engage in sexually violent conduct if released.

  8. People v. Magana

    76 Cal.App.5th 310 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)

    " ’ " ( Perez , at p. 8, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d 195, 459 P.3d 1.) Although Magana on appeal relies on the Supreme Court's holdings in People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1202, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 427, 223 P.3d 566 ( McKee I ), Blackburn , and Tran , all of which predate his trial, our later opinion in Washington for the first time specifically addressed an equal protection challenge to the SVPA's lack of a jury trial advisement. ( Washington , at p. 474, 287 Cal.Rptr.3d 352.)

  9. People v. Rose

    No. H038704 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2014)

    [Citation.]" (People v. Barrett (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1081, 1107.) "[E]qual protection safeguards against the arbitrary denial of benefits to a certain defined class of individuals . . . ." (People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1207 (McKee I).) "[W]hen certain due process protections for those civilly committed are guaranteed by statute, even if not constitutionally required, the denial of those protections to one group must be reasonably justified in order to pass muster under the equal protection clause." (Ibid.)

  10. People v. Olsen

    229 Cal.App.4th 981 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 17 times
    In Olsen, the petition was supported by a psychologist's report that Olsen no longer met the criteria of an SVP, was not likely to reoffend, and posed a low risk to the community.

    Defendant appealed from the judgment, contending that the indeterminate term of commitment violated equal protection, due process, and the ex post facto and double jeopardy clauses. This court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of reconsidering defendant's equal protection argument in light of People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 427, 223 P.3d 566 (McKee I) and the resolution of the proceedings on remand in that case. ( People v. Olsen (Sept. 11, 2012, H036654) 2012 WL 3984420 [nonpub. opn.] ( Olsen ).)