Although the appeal from the recommitment order under the Mentally Disordered Offenders Act was moot, the Court of Appeal addresses the defendant’s substantial evidence claim. Equal protection principles may entitle the defendant to review of his substantial evidence claim. In general, the appropriate remedy is to remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing to allow the state the opportunity to establish a factual basis justifying the disparate treatment of the affected groups, but the court of appeal instead addressed the merits of the claim in the unpublished portion of the decision.
The full opinion is available on the court’s website…
Although the appeal from the recommitment order under the Mentally Disordered Offenders Act was moot, the Court of Appeal addresses the defendant’s substantial evidence claim. Equal protection principles may entitle the defendant to review of his substantial evidence claim. In general, the appropriate remedy is to remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing to allow the state the opportunity to establish a factual basis justifying the disparate treatment of the affected groups, but the court of appeal instead addressed the merits of the claim in the unpublished portion of the decision.
The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C098659.PDF