(a)The Legislature finds that there are prisoners who have a treatable, severe mental health disorder that was one of the causes of, or was an aggravating factor in, the commission of the crime for which they were incarcerated. Secondly, the Legislature finds that if the severe mental health disorders of those prisoners are not in remission or cannot be kept in remission at the time of their parole or upon termination of parole, there is a danger to society, and the state has a compelling interest in protecting the public. Thirdly, the Legislature finds that in order to protect the public from those persons, it is necessary to provide mental health treatment until the severe mental health disorder that
was one of the causes of or was an aggravating factor in the person’s prior criminal behavior is in remission and can be kept in remission.
(b)The Legislature further finds and declares the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation should evaluate each prisoner for severe mental health disorders during the first year of the prisoner’s sentence, and that prisoners with severe mental health disorders should be provided with an appropriate level of mental health treatment while in prison and when returned to the community.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
147
cases (
19 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case:
In Re Qawi, 81 P.3d 224 (Cal. 2004).
In Re Qawi, 81 P.3d 224 (Cal. 2004).
· cites it 10× “(Pen.Code, § 2960 et seq.) Although the nature of an offender's past criminal conduct is one of the criteria for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO), the MDO Act itself is not punitive or penal in nature.”
People v. McKee, 223 P.3d 566 (Cal. 2010).
· cites it 4× “He contends that SVP's are treated less favorably than those similarly *1201 situated under the Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) Act, Penal Code section 2960 et al., in violation of the equal protection clause.”
People v. Hubbart, 1 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3694 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “), and the commitment scheme for persons found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) (Pen. Code, § 1026 et seq.). He contends the SVPA fails to provide equal treatment when compared to these other civil commitment schemes.”
People v. Barrett, 281 P.3d 753 (Cal. 2012).
· cites it 3× “9 [sexually violent predators]; Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq. [mentally disordered offenders]).”
People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti), 44 P.3d 949 (Cal. 2002).
· cites it 2× “) It provides for the involuntary civil commitment of certain offenders, following the completion of their prison terms, who are found to be SVP's because they have previously been convicted of sexually violent crimes and currently suffer diagnosed mental disorders which make…”
In Re Calhoun, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8033 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “(Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq.) Accordingly, we hold that “an [SVP] can be compelled to take antipsychotic medication in a nonemergency situation only if a court, at the time the [SVP] is committed or recommitted, or in a separate proceeding, makes one of two findings: (1) that the…”
Hubbart v. Superior Court, 969 P.2d 584 (Cal. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Hubbart notes that certain provisions in the MDO and LPS schemes require "substantial danger" or "demonstrated danger" for commitment [30] while section 6600, subdivision (a) of the SVPA expresses dangerousness in terms of whether the person "is likely" to commit violent sex…”
People v. Buffington, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7633 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 3× “(Pen. Code, § 2960.) An MDO commitment can occur only if the inmate “has been in treatment for the severe mental disorder for 90 days or more within the year prior to the prisoner’s parole or release.”
Orozco v. Superior Court, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2697 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “) [4] Ramirez further observed that since the SVP Act was enacted after the Mentally Disordered Offender Act (Pen.Code, § 2960 et seq.) and the not guilty by reason of insanity provisions (Pen.”
People v. Brian J., 2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4477 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “) and the mentally disordered offender (MDO) laws (Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq.). Second, he contends the order extending his commitment is unconstitutional because it is penal in nature, violates substantive due process, and results in cruel and unusual punishment.”
People v. Cobb, 226 P.3d 340 (Cal. 2010).
· cites it 2× “The present appeal is from a judgment extending Cobb's commitment under the Mentally Disordered Offender Act (Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq.). Although defense counsel stated at each court appearance, beginning over a month before defendant's prior commitment expired, that she was…”
People v. Dunley, 247 Cal. App. 4th 1438 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
“The Mentally Disordered Offenders Act (Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq.) 1 provides for involuntary civil commitment as a condition of parole for prisoners who are found to have “a severe mental disorder” if certain conditions are met.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.