State v. Roy
| Decision Date | 25 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | A17-1895 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, ex rel. Antwone Ford, petitioner, Respondent, v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).
Reversed
Washington County District Court
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Amy Lawler, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Rachel E. Bell, Kelly S. Kemp, Assistant Attorneys General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Reyes, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Respondent Antwone Ford was incarcerated after he was eligible for supervised release because he could not locate approved housing. After multiple review hearings and release revocations, Ford filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his continued incarceration. The petition was denied by the district court, considered by this court, and remanded for further findings on the efforts the Department of Corrections made to assist Ford in finding housing. Before the district court could consider the case on remand however, Ford was released to complete treatment in Hennepin County. While the Department of Corrections argued that the case became moot with Ford's release, the district court disagreed, held an evidentiary hearing, and issued an order directing the Department of Corrections to take a variety of actions to prevent Ford's potential future re-incarceration. The Department of Corrections appeals. Because Ford's release renders this case moot at this time, we reverse.
Respondent Antwone Ford pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal sexual conduct in 2008. He was sentenced to 36 months in prison, but the sentence was stayed and Ford was placed on probation. After various probation violations, Ford's sentence was executed in 2013, and conditional release was imposed. On Ford's supervised-release date in February 2015, he did not yet have an approved address to go to upon release, which is a requirement for level-III sex offenders such as Ford.1
Because Ford did not have an approved residence, he was transferred to the Blue Earth County jail on his release date, where he attempted to plan his release by making phone calls. After approximately two weeks, he was unable to find a residence and theDepartment of Correction's (DOC) Hearings and Release Unit (HRU) held a hearing on his alleged supervised-release violation—failing to find appropriate housing. The HRU hearing officer revoked his release for 90 days. Hearing officers revoked his release for the same reason four more times.
During his subsequent incarceration, Ford and the DOC attempted to find appropriate housing by contacting relatives who were either unwilling or unable to provide him housing in areas throughout Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota. Ford's county of commitment, as well as the county in which he has historical ties, is Blue Earth County. There is an Intensified Supervise Release (ISR) house in the county, in Mankato, which traditionally houses offenders who struggle to find housing. But Ford was unable to stay at the house due to a Mankato city ordinance that prohibits housing sex offenders at that location. Ford found a landlord in Ramsey County willing to rent to him, but Ramsey County refused to supervise him because he had no historical ties to the area and because of the high concentration of offenders in the zip codes of his proposed residences.
While incarcerated and after his fourth release revocation, Ford filed for habeas corpus relief. In his habeas petition, he argued the DOC was unlawfully continuing to incarcerate him and that the Mankato city ordinance that restricted his ability to live in the ISR house in Mankato was preempted by state law and violated his due-process rights.
The district court held a hearing on Ford's habeas petition. The court heard legal arguments but did not conduct an evidentiary hearing because it determined there was no dispute of material facts. The district court concluded that Ford could not challenge thecity ordinance since Mankato was not a party to the action and that the DOC's continued incarceration of Ford was lawful.
Ford appealed the district court's decision to this court, and this court issued an order opinion which reversed and remanded the case in order for the DOC to develop the record regarding efforts made to find housing for Ford, in compliance with this court's decision in State ex rel. Marlowe v. Fabian, 755 N.W.2d 792 (Minn. App. 2008). State ex rel. Ford v. Roy, No. A16-1769 (Minn. App. Feb. 1, 2017).
Shortly after this court issued its order opinion, Ford was released from custody to Alpha Human Services (Alpha House) in Hennepin County to complete sex-offender treatment. This is a 13- to 18-month program, the first four stages of which are "residential," meaning participants live at the treatment center. While residing at the treatment center, Ford will be supervised by a DOC agent. But in the final two stages of treatment, participants no longer live at the treatment center and often move to another housing option, the Portland House, also located in Hennepin County. When participants move to the Portland House, they are considered to be living in the community and supervised by Hennepin County. When and if Ford reaches that stage of the treatment program, the DOC will likely request that Hennepin County supervise Ford. The county can choose to accept or reject this supervision.
When this case returned to the district court on remand, the DOC argued the case was moot because Ford had already been released to Alpha House. But the district court disagreed and determined it could not disregard this court's instructions on remand to develop a record of the DOC's efforts to find housing for Ford. It conducted an evidentiaryhearing where the DOC's field-service director, the executive director of the HRU, Ford himself, his supervised-release agent while in Hennepin County, his supervised-release agent while in Blue Earth County, and his case manager from Stillwater prison, all testified.
The DOC's field-service director, Allen Godfrey, detailed all of the DOC's efforts to find housing for Ford including attempts to place him with five different relatives; the mother of his child; numerous landlords in Mankato, St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Fairmont; and a variety of affordable housing agencies. The DOC also assigned a mental-health planner to assist Ford by attempting to get him into three mental health related programs. And the DOC tried to get Nicollet County jail to house Ford three-quarter time to allow him to leave the jail to look for employment. In total, Godfrey estimated that the DOC made approximately 70 contacts regarding housing on Ford's behalf.
Godfrey explained the DOC's relationship with Community Corrections Act (CCA) counties, which are counties that provide their own supervised release versus DOC supervision. According to Godfrey, CCA counties can choose whether to supervise offenders, and the DOC cannot force them to do so, though there are dispute resolution processes for conflicts. And if a CCA county does not agree to supervise, the DOC generally will not place that individual in that county under DOC supervision. Godfrey further explained the DOC's use of ISR houses, houses the DOC rents to provide housing for offenders placed on ISR, but noted that individuals can only reside in these houses iflocated in a county where the offender has historical ties, or if it is the county of commitment.2
Ford testified and explained that he had submitted residences in Ramsey County that were rejected. He discussed his current participation in sex-offender treatment at Alpha House, and told the district court that he wanted to complete the program and felt he was doing well in it.
Following the evidentiary hearing, the district court issued its findings and order. The court concluded the DOC had not fulfilled its obligation under Marlowe, 755 N.W.2d 792, which requires the DOC to consider restructuring an individual's release to include viable housing options, and was not following its own policy 203.018 on the hierarchy of county of presumptive supervision.3 It granted Ford's petition and ordered that:
The DOC appeals.
The DOC argues that because Ford was released to the community, his habeas petition challenging his continued incarceration is moot. We agree.
This court can only decide actual, justiciable controversies. In re Matter of Dahlgren Twp., 906 N.W.2d 512, 520 (Minn. App. 2017); State v. Brooks, 604 N.W.2d 345, 347 (Minn. 2000), as modified (Mar. 15, 2000). And such a controversy only exists when a claim "in addition to adverse interests and concrete assertions of rights, [. . .] allows for specific relief by a decree or judgment of a specific character as distinguished from an advisory opinion predicated on hypothetical facts." State ex rel. Sviggum v. Hanson, 732 N.W.2d 312, 321 (Minn. App. 2007). Appellate courts do not issue advisory opinions, nor do they decide cases merely to establish precedent. State ex rel. Leino v. Roy, 910 N.W.2d 477, 481 (Minn. 2018). When a justiciable...
To continue reading
Request your trial