P. v. Ramos
Following a court trial, appellant was found to be a sexually violent predator (SVP), within the meaning of the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.).[1] He was committed to the Department of Mental Health for two years. This appeal followed.
The SVPA defines a sexually violent predator as a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against two or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior. ( 6600, subd. (a)(1).) Pursuant to that definition, the People had to establish: (1) at least two prior sexually violent offenses; (2) a current predisposing mental disorder, and (3) a likelihood that sexually violent criminal behavior would be repeated upon release. (Hubbartv. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1144-1145, 1162 (Hubbart).)
Appellant contends: (1) There was insufficient evidence that he suffered from a current mental disorder. (2) The trial court relied partly on unreliable, inadmissible hearsay evidence about an earlier uncharged crime. (3) The Static-99 test for predicting sexual recidivism is unreliable. (4) There was insufficient evidence that he was likely to reoffend. (5) The SVPA violates the ex post facto clause. (6) The SVPA violates the equal protection clause.
Court find no merit in the contentions, and affirm.
Comments on P. v. Ramos