SVPA case In this opinion, the appellate court rejects the due process and equal protection challenges to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) not previously rejected in Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal. 4th 421, (“Hubbart 1”). The court rejected arguments that the SVPA violates equal protection because: 1) its definition of mental disorder is less exacting than the definition of mental disorder contained in the Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) law; 2) it has a lower evidentiary standard than the MDO law, the LPS Act, or the NGI scheme; 3) it fails to provide for treatment prior to the commencement of long-term commitment, in contrast to the MDO law and LPS Act; and 4) it does not provide for custody credits, unlike the MDO law and NGI scheme. The court also rejected, as was rejected in Hubbart 1, appellant’s challenges based on due process, ex post facto and double jeopardy provisions. Further, the court held that although appellant was not in lawful custody when he was committed under the SVPA, he was not denied due process. The unlawful custody was the result of a good faith error, and the SVPA provided numerous procedural safeguards. The court also found no instructional error, and no error in the admission of detailed evidence of prior sexual assaults, since the probative value far outweighed any possible prejudice.