Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C7-98-1973
C9-98-1974
C3-98-2120
C5-98-2121
C3-98-2246

John Anton Joelson, petitioner,
Appellant (C7-98-1973),

Clarence Pedro Patterson, petitioner,
Appellant (C9-98-1974),

Gary Alan Mattson, petitioner,
Appellant (C3-98-2120),

Julian A. Caprice, f/k/a Wilbert Buckhalton, petitioner,
Appellant (C5-98-2121),

Thomas Ray Duvall,
Appellant (C3-98-2246),

vs.

Michael O'Keefe,
Commissioner of Human Services,
Respondent.

Filed May 18, 1999
Affirmed; motion granted in part and denied in part
Harten, Judge
Concurring specially, Randall, Judge

Carlton County District Court
File Nos. C3-98-778, C8-98-775, C4-98-773, C1-98-777, and

Washington County District Court
File No. C2-98-2556

Stephen D. Radtke, 299 Valley Office Park, 10800 Lyndale Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55420 (for appellants)
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Steven J. Lokensgard, Assistant Attorney General, 900 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent Commissioner of Human Services)
Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Carolyn A. Peterson, Assistant County Attorney, A-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent Hennepin County)
Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Harten, Judge, and Anderson, Judge.
S Y L L A B U S
1.
The sexual psychopathic personality act comports with substantive due process.

2.
In a habeas corpus appeal, an appellate court need not address issues that are unsupported by argument or authorities

and that have been addressed in earlier proceedings.

3.
The sexual psychopathic personality act does not require additional procedures to render it constitutional.

4.
The sexual psychopathic personality act does not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.

5.
Material that is not part of the record below will not be considered on appeal.



O P I N I O N
HARTEN, Judge
The appellants, all of whom have been committed indeterminately as psychopathic personalities, brought individual petitions for writs of habeas corpus to challenge the constitutionality of their commitments. The district courts denied the petitions and these appeals followed, which we consolidated because they raise similar legal issues. Respondent's motion to strike portions of the appendices of two appellants (for including materials not part of the trial court record) was unopposed. We affirm and grant in part and deny in part respondent's motion.

FACTS
Joelson v. O'Keefe (C7-98-1973)
On January 20, 1982, Joelson was initially committed as a psychopathic personality. On April 2, 1982, after a review hearing, his commitment was made indeterminate. A three-judge appeal panel affirmed. After a further appeal, the supreme court upheld his commitment on the merits but remanded it for new evidence on treatment. In re Joelson, 344 N.W.2d 613, 614 (Minn. 1984). On remand, the district court found that the Minnesota Security Hospital was the least restrictive placement, which was affirmed on appeal. In re Joelson, 385 N.W.2d 810, 811-12 (Minn. 1986).
Joelson then sought discharge from commitment. On August 4, 1995, the Commissioner of Human Services denied his petition. On February 20, 1996, his petition for rehearing and reconsideration before the judicial appeal panel was denied. We affirmed. Joelson v. Petraborg, No. C9-96-805 (Minn. App. Sept. 17, 1996), review denied (Minn. Nov. 20, 1996). Joelson petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. On October 2, 1998, the district court denied the petition, and Joelson appeals.
Patterson v. O'Keefe (C9-98-1974)
On May 3, 1994, Patterson was initially committed as a psychopathic personality. He appealed, challenging the merits and the constitutionality of his commitment. We affirmed. In re Patterson , No. C0-94-1367 (Minn. App. Nov. 8, 1994), review denied (Minn. Jan. 13, 1995), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1124 (1995). On March 3, 1995, the district court made his commitment indeterminate after a review hearing. Patterson's appeal from the indeterminate commitment was also unsuccessful. In re Patterson , No. C3-95-935 (Minn. App. Sept. 19, 1995), review denied (Minn. Nov. 3, 1995). Patterson petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. On October 2, 1998, the district court denied his petition. Patterson appeals.
Mattson v. O'Keefe (C3-98-2120)
On January 3, 1995, Mattson was initially committed as a psychopathic personality. We affirmed. In re Mattson, No. C5-95-452 (Minn. App. June 20, 1995), review denied (Minn. Aug. 30, 1995). On October 6, 1995, the district court made his commitment indeterminate. We also affirmed the indeterminate commitment. In re Mattson, No. C8-95-2423 (Minn. App. Apr. 9, 1996), review denied (Minn. May 21, 1996). Mattson petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. On October 17, 1998, the district court denied his petition. Mattson appeals.
Caprice v. O'Keefe (C5-98-2121)
On February 5, 1993, Julian Caprice, formerly known as Wilbert Buckhalton, was initially committed as a psychopathic personality. We affirmed. In re Buckhalton, 503 N.W.2d 148 (Minn. App. 1993), aff'd mem., 518 N.W.2d 531 (Minn. 1994). On November 12, 1993, the district court held a review hearing and made his commitment indeterminate. We affirmed the indeterminate commitment. In re Buckhalton, No. C2-93-2428 (Minn. App. Feb. 15, 1994), review denied (Minn. Mar. 31, 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 850 (1994). Caprice then sought full discharge. After the Commissioner of Human Services denied his petition, he appealed to the judicial appeal panel, which also denied the petition. Caprice appealed and we affirmed. Caprice v. Gomez, 552 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 1996). Caprice petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. On October 17, 1998, the district court denied his petition. Caprice appeals.
Duvall v. O'Keefe (C3-98-2246)
On April 4, 1991, Thomas Duvall was committed as a psychopathic personality. On August 14, 1991, his commitment was made indeterminate. We affirmed. In re Duvall, No. C5-91-1799 (Minn. App. Dec. 31, 1991), review denied (Minn. Mar. 26, 1992). Duvall filed his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the district court denied on May 20, 1996. We affirmed. Duvall v. Doth, No. C2-96-1262 (Minn. App. Nov. 5, 1996), review denied (Minn. Jan. 6, 1997). He filed another petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On November 9, 1998, the district court denied the petition. Duvall appeals.


ISSUES
1.
Does the sexual psychopathic personality act comport with substantive due process in light of Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S. Ct. 2072 (1997)?

2.
Were appellants committed without the requisite showing that they exhibited an utter lack of power to control their sexual impulses?

3.
Does Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S. Ct. 2072 (1997), impose new procedural requirements that supplement the sexual psychopathic personality act?

4.
Does commitment as a sexual psychopathic personality violate the prohibition against double jeopardy?

5.
Should respondent's motion to strike portions of Mattson's and Caprice's appendices be granted?



ANALYSIS
An appellate court will review a habeas corpus decision de novo where, as here, the facts are undisputed. State ex rel. Hussman v. Hursh, 253 Minn. 578, 578 n.1, 92 N.W.2d 673, 673 n.1 (1958).
Committed persons may challenge the legality of their commitment through habeas corpus. State ex rel. Anderson v. United States Veterans Hosp., 268 Minn. 213, 217, 128 N.W.2d 710, 714 (1964); see Minn. Stat. ch. 589 (1998) (providing procedures for writ of habeas corpus); Minn. Stat.

Download c7981973.pdf

Minnesota Law