Where a man, who challenged his commitment as a sexually violent predator, argued that he was unconstitutionally committed because he was committed arbitrarily when a guardianship proceeding was pending, the man did not cite any authority to support the claim that a guardianship proceeding should precede an SVP proceeding, and he did not show that the SVP act was unconstitutionally applied to him, and the court also did not abuse its discretion in failing to continue the SVP trial sua sponte until after final judgment in the pending guardianship proceeding, and the judgment is affirmed because the man also did not show that he was prejudiced by the ineffective assistance of counsel.
Judgment is affirmed.
In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of: D.D. (MLW No. 73252/Case No. ED105169 – 13 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Hess, J.) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis City, Heagney, J. (Amy E. Lowe for appellant) (Karen L. Kramer for respondent).