P. v. NTHONY C.,
Filed 3/7/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
| In re ANTHONY C., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________________ THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY C., Defendant and Appellant. | C048529
(Super. Ct. No. JV110110)
|
….Continue…….From Part I……..
Double jeopardy does not apply to civil actions. (Hudson v. United States (1997) 522 U.S. 93, 99 [139 L.Ed.2d 450, 459]; Hendricks, supra, 521 U.S. at p. 369 [138 L.Ed.2d at p. 520].) Because extended commitment proceedings under section 1800 et seq. are civil in nature (In re Howard N., supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 122; In re Gary W. (1971) 5 Cal.3d 296, 301-302, superseded by statute on other grounds), the double jeopardy provisions of the state and federal constitution do not bar such proceedings. (Hendricks, supra, 521 U.S. at p. 369 [138 L.Ed.2d at p. 520]; In re Steven S. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 349, 353 [double jeopardy does not apply to EDA proceeding]; People v. Francis (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 873, 877 [double jeopardy does not apply to civil commitment proceeding of mentally disordered offender] People v. Superior Court (Williams) (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 477, 484 [double jeopardy does not apply to proceeding to extend civil commitment of defendant previously found not guilty by reason of insanity].)
However, section 1801.5 makes â€
