Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A10-1269 A10-1270

Court of Appeals

Anderson, Paul H., J.

In re Civil Commitment of Peter Gerard Lonergan, and In re Civil Commitment of Robert Archie Kunshier. ________________________ Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, John L. Kirwin, Special Assistant County Attorney, Deborah E. Schmidt, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Karen L. Henke, Assistant County Attorney, Hastings, Minnesota, for respondent. Kurt M. Anderson, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellants. ________________________ SYLLABUS A patient indeterminately civilly committed as a Sexually Dangerous Person or Sexual Psychopathic Personality may not bring a motion seeking transfer or discharge from his commitment under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02; but, such a patient may bring a Rule 60.02 motion that does not (1) distinctly conflict with the Minnesota Commitment and Filed: April 11, 2012 Office of Appellate Courts

1

Treatment Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 253B (2010), or (2) frustrate the statutory purposes of rehabilitating the patient and protecting the public. Reversed in part and remanded. OPINION ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice. Peter Gerard Lonergan and Robert Archie Kunshier are both indeterminately civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. Lonergan and Kunshier each sought relief from his commitment by filing a pro se motion in Dakota County District Court under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. After the district court denied the motions, both Lonergan and Kunshier appealed. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Lonergan's motion. The court held that as a Sexually Dangerous Person, Lonergan could not use Rule 60.02 to seek a discharge from his indeterminate commitment or to make a constitutional challenge to the adequacy of his treatment at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. The court reached its holding, in part, by concluding that Rule 60.02 conflicts with the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act, Minn.

Stat. ch. 253B (2010). The court also affirmed the denial of Kunshier's motion in a separate opinion, citing its decision in In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan, 792 N.W.2d 473 (Minn. App. 2011), to mean that Rule 60.02 may not be used to seek any relief from an indeterminate civil commitment order. Lonergan and Kunshier appealed to our court arguing, among other things, that their commitments are unconstitutional. We reverse in part and remand.

2

Peter Gerard Lonergan On May 14, 2009, the Dakota County District Court indeterminately civilly committed Peter Gerard Lonergan to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) as a Sexually Dangerous Person (SDP) under the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act (Commitment Act). Minn. Stat. ch. 253B (2010). Approximately 1 year later, on May 27, 2010, Lonergan filed a pro se motion seeking relief from the district court's judgment under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(d)-(f). Lonergan asked the court to either (1) dismiss his commitment as void, or (2) order his placement in a "viable accredited program which offers meaningful sex offender treatment." Lonergan claimed that, despite MSOP's mandate to provide proper care and treatment, he was not receiving any sex-offender-specific Lonergan argued treatment. that MSOP

See Minn. Stat.

Download A10-1269, A10-1270, In re Civil Commitment of Peter Gerard Lonergan, and In re C

Minnesota Law