P. v. Litmon
David Litmon, Jr., appeals from a September 7, 2005 order recommitting him as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.)[1] for a two-year period from May 2, 2002 to May 2, 2004 following a jury trial. Appellant asserts that the trial court violated his federal constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when, in July 2005, it denied his pretrial motion to dismiss the first recommitment petition for unreasonable pretrial delay.[2]
Appellant now claims the motion to dismiss should have been granted because the prejudicial effect of the delay in bringing him to trial outweighed the reasons for the delay and he argues that the extended pretrial delay created a presumption of prejudice and, furthermore, his unauthorized confinement constituted actual prejudice. His due process argument to the trial court was that he was "entitled to a trial at a 'meaningful time and in a meaningful manner' " and "[t]hat time was February 23, 2004, when he announced ready prior to the termination of the proposed commitment," which was due to expire in early May 2004. Court uphold the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss based upon the arguments before it and affirm its recommitment order.
Appellant has also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which Court ordered considered with this appeal (H030543). Court resolve the petition by a separate order.
Comments on P. v. Litmon