Senate Bill No. 1128 did not eliminate statutory authority to file petitions to extend the commitment of persons who were already committed as sexually violent predators at the time the bill went into effect. In this case that was previously partially published, the court granted respondent’s request to publish another part. The court joined other appellate courts in holding that Senate Bill 1128 did not eliminate statutory authorization to extend the commitment of persons already committed as SVP’s. (See People v. Shields (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 559 [Fourth District, Division One], and People v. Carroll (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 503 [Fifth District].) Since the plain language of the SVPA as amended by the bill is ambiguous on the issue of whether extended commitments are permissible, the court looked to other indicia of legislative intent and concluded there was a clear intent to enhance–not restrict–confinement of persons determined to be SVP’s.