Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
2011 Minn. App. LEXIS 43
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Beaulieu was civilly committed in 2006 as a sexually dangerous person and a sexual psychopathic personality for an indeterminate period.
- Three court-appointed attorneys represented Beaulieu; Beaulieu sought discharge of the first attorney, who was reappointed, and a third attorney was appointed for appellate work.
- Appellate counsel filed an untimely notice of appeal from the July 3, 2006 commitment order; appeal was dismissed as untimely.
- Beaulieu then pursued federal habeas corpus petitions; federal court denied for failure to exhaust state remedies, affirmed on appeal.
- Beaulieu filed a state-court habeas petition in December 2009 alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to timely appeal; district court denied.
- The core legal issue is whether the right to counsel in civil-commitment proceedings is constitutional or statutory, and whether such a claim can support habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas relief can be grounded on a statutory right to counsel. | Beaulieu argues the statutory right to counsel in § 253B.07, subd. 2c, includes effective appellate assistance. | DHS contends habeas relief requires a constitutional violation; Sixth Amendment does not apply to civil commitments. | Habeas relief requires a constitutional violation or lack of jurisdiction; statutory right to counsel is not a constitutional right. |
| Whether the Due Process Clause confers a right to effective appellate counsel in civil-commitment proceedings. | Beaulieu relies on due process to mandate effective counsel. | There is no due process right to counsel in civil-commitment proceedings recognized by the Supreme Court or Minnesota Supreme Court. | No due process right to effective appellate counsel in civil-commitment proceedings; petition fails on this ground. |
| Whether Beaulieu’s statutory right to counsel under § 253B.07, subd. 2c, can support habeas relief when the Sixth Amendment does not apply. | Statutory right to counsel should be enforceable and provide relief for ineffective assistance. | Statutory right is not a constitutional right; cannot support habeas relief absent constitutional violation. | Statutory right to counsel is non-constitutional; cannot support habeas relief; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Guth v. Fabian, 716 N.W.2d 28 (Minn. App. 2006) (discusses scope and review of habeas corpus in Minnesota)
- Joelson v. O’Keefe, 594 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. App. 1999) (habeas scope limited to constitutional/jurisdictional challenges)
- Loyd v. Fabian, 682 N.W.2d 688 (Minn. App. 2004) (habeas scope includes statutory challenges but limited to constitutional issues)
- Anderson v. U.S. Veterans Hosp., 268 Minn. 213 (1964) (habeas scope for jurisdictional defects and constitutional violations)
- Crosby v. Wood, 265 N.W.2d 638 (Minn. 1978) (statutory procedure issues raised in habeas)
- Kelsey v. State, 283 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. 1979) (parole procedures and constitutional due process; caution on statutory grounds)
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) ( Due Process Clause requires appointed counsel for certain proceedings)
- Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980) (Due Process and liberty interests; statutory rights may create liberty interests)
- Beaulieu v. Minnesota, 583 F.3d 570 (8th Cir. 2009) (federal habeas denial for exhaustion; not binding on state-law interpretation)
- In re Commitment of Johnson, 782 N.W.2d 274 (Minn. App. 2010) (subject-matter jurisdiction question regarding Leech Lake band member)