Joelson v. O'Keefe

• Decision Date: 18 May 1999
• Docket Number: C3-98-2246,C5-98-2121,C3-98-2120,Nos. C7-98-1973,C9-98-1974,s. C7-98-1973
• Citation: 594 N.W.2d 905
• Parties: John Anton JOELSON, petitioner, Appellant, Clarence Pedro Patterson, petitioner, Appellant, Gary Alan Mattson, petitioner, Appellant, Julian A. Caprice, f/k/a Wilbert Buckhalton, petitioner, Appellant, Thomas Ray Duvall, Appellant, v. Michael O'KEEFE, Commissioner of Human Services, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 905

594 N.W.2d 905

John Anton JOELSON, petitioner, AppellantClarence Pedro Patterson, petitioner, AppellantGary Alan Mattson, petitioner, AppellantJulian A. Caprice, f/k/a Wilbert Buckhalton, petitioner, AppellantThomas Ray Duvall, Appellant, v.Michael O'KEEFE, Commissioner of Human Services, Respondent.

Nos. C7-98-1973, C5-98-2121, C9-98-1974, C3-98-2246, C3-98-2120.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

May 18, 1999.

Syllabus by the Court

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.

Stephen D. Radtke, Minneapolis, MN, for appellants.

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Steven J. Lokensgard, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, for respondentCommissioner of Human Services.

Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Carolyn A. Peterson, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for respondentHennepin County.

Considered and decided by RANDALL, Presiding Judge, HARTEN, Judge, and G. BARRY ANDERSON, Judge.

OPINION

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. C9-96-805,1996 WL 523804(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, 1994 WL 615035(Minn.App.Nov. 8, 1994), review denied (Minn. Jan. 13, 1995), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1124, 115 S.Ct. 2281, 132 L.Ed.2d 284(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. C3-95-9351995 WL 550898(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, 1995 WL 365374(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, 1996 WL 167638(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, 1994 WL 43870(Minn.App.Feb.15, 1994), review denied (Minn. Mar. 31, 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 850, 115 S.Ct. 148, 130 L.Ed.2d 88(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, 1991 WL 276194(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, 1996 WL 636245(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, 138 L.Ed.2d 501(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, 138 L.Ed.2d 501(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);seeMinn.Stat. ch. 589(1998)(providing procedures for writ of habeas corpus);Minn.Stat. § 253B.23, subd. 5(1998)(stating that the commitment statute is not intended to abridge right to habeas corpus).But the only issues the district court will consider are constitutional and jurisdictional challenges.Anderson, 268 Minn. at 217, 128 N.W.2d at 714.Further, appellants are not entitled to obtain review of an issue previously raised.SeeState ex rel. Crippen v. Tahash, 274 Minn. 565, 565-66, 143 N.W.2d 383, 384(1966)(declining to address issues in habeas appeal that had been raised previously);State ex rel. Thomas v. Rigg, 255 Minn. 227, 234, 96 N.W.2d 252, 257(1959)(habeas may not substitute for appeal or be used to collaterally attack commitment).

1.SPP Commitment: Substantive Due Process

Appellants first argue that their sexual psychopathic personality (SPP) commitments violate substantive due process under Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501(1997).The appellants were committed under either the earlier version of the SPP law, found most recently at Minn.Stat. § 526.09(1992), or under the recodified version, renamed "[s]exual psychopathic personality," now at Minn.Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 18b(1998).

The supreme court upheld section 526.09 as constitutional against a void for vagueness challenge through the use of narrowing language requiring "an utter lack of power to control [the person's] sexual impulses."State ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court, 205 Minn. 545, 555, 287 N.W. 297, 302(1939), aff'd, 309 U.S. 270, 60 S.Ct. 523, 84 L.Ed. 744(1940).Minn.Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 18b, incorporates the Pearson language; the legislature did not intend to change the meaning of this law by the recodification.1994 Minn. Laws1st Spec. Sess. art. 1, § 5(a).In 1994, the supreme court likewise upheld the constitutionality of the psychopathic personality law under Pearson against substantive due process and equal protection challenges.In re Blodgett, 510 N.W.2d 910, 916-17(Minn.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 849, 115 S.Ct. 146, 130 L.Ed.2d 86(1994).

Appellants contend that Hendricks requires evidence of an inability to control sexual impulses as a constitutional predicate to commitment as a sexual predator.But Minnesota law already requires utter lack of power to control sexual impulses for an SPP commitment.Minn.Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 18b.Further, Hendricks cited with approval the Minnesota psychopathic personality law.117 S.Ct. at 2080.Consequently, we need not decide in this case whether Hendricks mandates a showing of an utter lack of power to control sexual impulses for commitment of any sexual predator.We note that this...