In re Schuman
| Jurisdiction | Iowa,United States |
| Parties | In re Detention of Stewart Franklin Schuman, State of Iowa, Appellant, |
| Decision Date | 19 January 2024 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | 22-1521 |
Submitted October 11, 2023
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, James C Ellefson, Judge.
The State challenges a district court order granting a sexually violent predator's request for transitional release. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI GRANTED; WRIT SUSTAINED.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines (argued) and Keisha F. Crestinger, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant.
Michael H. Adams (argued), Local Public Defender, Special Defense Unit, Des Moines, for appellee.
Waterman, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices joined except Mansfield, J., who filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
This case presents questions of whether the district court erred by ordering the placement of a sexually violent predator in a transitional release program over the State's objection and the proper form of appellate review. The State argues the offender was ineligible for that program without a relapse prevention plan (RPP) accepted by his treatment provider at the Civil Commitment Unit for Sexual Offenders (CCUSO) as required by Iowa Code section 229A.8A(2)(d) (2022). The district court determined that the offender's plan, approved by the offender's expert, satisfied that statutory requirement. The State appealed, and the offender moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction on the grounds that there was no final judgment. The State resisted, and in the alternative, argued that the order could be reviewed through a petition for writ of certiorari under Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.107 and 6.108. We submitted the motion to dismiss with the appeal.
On our review, we determine that a writ of certiorari is the proper form of appellate review, and we grant the petition. On the merits, for the reasons explained below, we hold that the district court erred by substituting its judgment for that of CCUSO's staff. We agree with the State that this offender was ineligible for placement in the transitional release program because his treatment provider at CCUSO had not accepted his proposed RPP. Acceptance was withheld for a valid reason-the offender's demotion to a more restrictive treatment phase after failing polygraph and penile plethysmograph tests. This offender was not seeking discharge, and courts must give deference to CCUSO's internal placement decisions. The district court erred by second-guessing the CCUSO staff's placement decision. The offender's substantive due process claims fail. We therefore sustain the writ and vacate the district court's ruling.
Stewart Schuman, now age 69, was civilly committed as a sexually violent predator under Iowa Code chapter 229A in December 2012. A unanimous jury determined that Schuman had been convicted of a sexually violent offense and "suffers from a mental abnormality which makes [him] likely to engage in predatory acts constituting sexually violent offenses, if not confined in a secure facility.”[1] Iowa Code § 229A.2(11) (2012). Schuman has been confined at CCUSO within the Cherokee Mental Health Institute since 2012.
Schuman had a troubled upbringing in Louisiana. At age five, Schuman entered foster care. At age 10, Schuman was placed at a Louisiana state training school where he spent the rest of his teenage years and where he was sexually abused by staff and older students. He "began sexually acting out" and sexually abusing his classmates-both boys and girls. Schuman completed the eleventh grade at the training school. He moved to Iowa and obtained his GED in 2005 while incarcerated at the Mount Pleasant Correctional Facility. He has been married twice and has a daughter, a stepdaughter, and a son.
Schuman's criminal record includes two sexual convictions. In 1995, at age 28, he was convicted of third-degree sexual abuse of his seven-year-old son. In 2005, at age 38, he was convicted of third-degree sexual abuse of his six-year-old nephew. Schuman has admitted to other sex offenses that he was not arrested for but has been inconsistent as to how many. In a 2013 polygraph interview, Schuman admitted to over one hundred victims. But in 2016, he admitted to only thirty victims. And in his most recent RPP, Schuman admitted to only seven victims-his seven-year-old son, his six-year-old nephew, an eight-year-old girl in 1977, his nine-year-old stepsister in 1981, an eleven-year-old girl in the early 1980s, and a thirteen-year-old boy and a four-year-old girl at times Schuman could not recall.
Schuman has participated in the sex offender treatment program (SOTP) at CCUSO for a decade. The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) operates CCUSO. Iowa Dep't of Health &Hum. Servs., Civil Commitment Unit for Sexual Offenders, https://hhs.iowa.gov/programs/mental-health/find-service/inpatient-facilities/ccuso [https://perma.cc/SG8M-SJ9E] [hereinafter HHS, CCUSO]. The legislature established CCUSO through the 1998 Sexually Violent Predators Act of Iowa, 1998 Iowa Acts ch. 1171 (codified at Iowa Code chapter 229A (1999)), which mirrors other states' sexually violent predator programs. See In re Det. of Garren, 620 N.W.2d 275, 284 (Iowa 2000) (en banc) (); see also HHS, CCUSO ("There are twenty (20) states with inpatient treatment programs like CCUSO.").
Chapter 229A was enacted to provide "long-term care and treatment" of a "small but extremely dangerous group of sexually violent predators." Iowa Code § 229A.1(1), (4) (2022). The legislative findings include the necessity for commitment procedures "to protect the public, to respect the needs of the victims of sexually violent offenses, and to encourage full, meaningful participation of sexually violent predators in treatment programs." Id. § 229A.1(4). CCUSO provides a mandatory program for sexual offenders considered likely to reoffend, with treatment as the program's main objective. Swanson v. Civ. Commitment Unit for Sex Offenders, 737 N.W.2d 300, 302 (Iowa 2007). CCUSO staff includes psychiatric security specialists and therapists who treat the offenders housed there. See HHS, CCUSO.
"CCUSO developed a 'Patient Handbook and Orientation Manual' [that] provides the rules and policies of CCUSO." Swanson, 737 N.W.2d at 302. The handbook explains CCUSO's "phase system," which was developed to motivate offenders to cooperate in their treatment. Id. The treatment program is divided into five phases: (1) treatment engagement and interfering factors, (2) identification of dynamic risk factors and long term vulnerabilities, (3) specific interventions for dynamic risk factors and long term vulnerabilities, (4) maintenance of change, and (5) transitional release. The phases represent the offender's progression through treatment. "Treatment is based on the current best practice of Risk-Need-Responsivity Model (RNR) ...." HHS, CCUSO. A treatment team determines whether the offender has met the requirements for the next phase and then refers the offender to the clinical team for a decision.
Each offender starts at phase one, which is designed to identify treatment-interfering factors. Phase one is called the "assessment and observation phase," when "patients and program staff have an opportunity to become acquainted and to develop a clear understanding about program expectations and rules." Swanson, 737 N.W.2d at 302.
Phase two is the "core phase." Id. at 303. The offender "participates in a minimum one-year curriculum of psycho-educational groups" that "teach concepts and skills that are fundamental to learning to control sexual impulses." Id. Phase two involves the offender recognizing and developing insight into their offense cycle.
Phase three is the "advanced phase." Id. This phase requires the offender to "work on applying the principles and concepts learned in phase two." Id. The offender is required to develop "an individualized treatment plan" and complete "victim sheets and victim letters." Id. The offender also develops specific interventions to control the offender's dynamic risk factors (DRFs)-which are factors that contribute to the offender's risk of reoffending. There are several other requirements for the offender to advance out of phase three: "no ratings lower than five on the last ninety-day review," no "major behavioral reports for the last four months," and "completion of specific offense polygraphs." Id.
Phase four is the "honor phase." Id. The offender practices interventions in daily activities. The offender creates an RPP during this phase that outlines the individual's DRFs, interventions for the DRFs, and other ways to lower their risk of reoffending. The offender should learn how to self-identify sexual tendencies and what factors might lead the offender to reoffend. The offender must also successfully complete "a polygraph exam regarding recent sexual fantasies and behaviors." Id. At the end of phase four, the offender should be ready for a less restrictive environment with a reduced risk of reoffending. Id. Progress from phase four to phase five depends upon the individual satisfying the ten requirements set forth in Iowa Code section 229A.8A(2) and (4). See id. We quote those requirements in full in our statutory analysis below.
Phase five is the "transition phase," also known as the transitional release program. Id. HHS is authorized to "provide control, care, and treatment, and supervision of committed persons placed in [the transitional release] program." Iowa Code §...
To continue reading
Request your trial