Griffin v. Bruffett, 389 P.3d 992

Background

Matthew B. Griffin was civilly committed as a sexually violent predator (SVP) to Larned State Hospital in January 2009 and has remained in the Sexual Predator Treatment Program (SPTP).
Annual psychological evaluations were completed each year, and Griffin signed the annual notice forms, but the Saline County District Court failed to hold or record judicial review hearings (and enter recommitment orders) in 4 of the first 6 challenged years (years 1, 3, 4, 5).
An order recommitting Griffin was entered for year 2 (May 27, 2011) and for year 6 (March 30, 2015); Griffin filed a habeas petition (K.S.A. 60-1501) on April 28, 2015 challenging his confinement as unlawful since 2010 and seeking immediate release.
Griffin did not appeal the recommitment orders at the time they were entered; his petition was largely untimely under statutory time limits except as to the sixth year where his petition was filed within 30 days of the recommitment order.
The district court summarily dismissed the petition; the court of appeals affirmed, finding most claims time-barred and that Griffin had waived the hearing (or failed to show manifest injustice or prejudice from counsel) for the timely year.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to hold annual judicial review hearings for multiple years rendered all subsequent confinement illegal and entitled Griffin to unconditional release	Griffin: district court’s repeated failure to conduct annual reviews (years 1–6) violated statutory and due process rights; confinement unlawful since 2010; remedy = immediate release	State: evaluations were done annually; statutory time limits for collateral attack apply; later recommitment actions and subsequent evaluations moot earlier procedural defects; release is not an available remedy absent proof of changed condition	Court: Most claims (years 1–5) are time-barred; even where process failed, Griffin did not show manifest injustice or changed condition entitling him to release; affirmed dismissal
When does the limitations period run for challenging a prior year’s commitment under K.S.A. 60-1501?	Griffin: annual review must occur within 1 year anniversary so failure voids commitment from that date	State: filing of the annual evaluation/notice or entry of a recommitment order yields finality and starts the statutory clock; SVPA allows some timing flexibility	Court: Adopted a reasonable-finality rule — the filing of the annual evaluation/notice (or the subsequent year’s recommitment order) is a reasonable cutoff to start the 30‑day limit; applied to bar years 1–5
Whether Griffin established manifest injustice to excuse untimeliness	Griffin: district court’s indifference and lack of notice justify equitable tolling and excusing delay	State: Griffin had notice (signed forms), counsel at times, and did not show justification or a colorable claim of changed condition	Court: Griffin failed Vontress factors — inadequate justification and no showing that confinement was no longer necessary; manifest injustice not shown
Whether Griffin received ineffective assistance of counsel warranting relief	Griffin: counsel failed to secure hearings or protect his procedural rights during annual reviews	State: Even if counsel erred, Griffin must show prejudice (different outcome likely); record shows he agreed he was not eligible for transitional release in later years	Held: Griffin did not show prejudice or ineffective assistance; claim denied

Key Cases Cited

Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) (upheld Kansas SVPA and emphasized annual-review safeguard to avoid punitive detention)
In re Care & Treatment of Hay, 263 Kan. 822 (1998) (Kansas Supreme Court: SVPA facially constitutional and procedural protections sufficient)
In re Care & Treatment of Burch, 296 Kan. 215 (2012) (describing district court’s duties for preliminary review and right to full hearing if probable cause exists)
Johnson v. State, 289 Kan. 642 (2009) (standards for summary dismissal of K.S.A. 60-1501 petitions: "shocking and intolerable conduct" threshold)
Vontress v. State, 299 Kan. 607 (2014) (factors to assess manifest injustice for untimely collateral petitions)
In re Care & Treatment of Ontiberos, 295 Kan. 10 (2012) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standards in the SVPA/collateral context)
In re Care & Treatment of Zishka, 51 Kan. App. 2d 242 (2015) (SVPA is facially constitutional but courts must follow statutory mandates)
In re Care & Treatment of Miles, 42 Kan. App. 2d 471 (2009) (same principle: compliance with statutory process required)
In re Commitment of Beyer, 287 Wis. 2d 1 (2006) (discussing mandamus as a possible remedy to compel court action when annual-review hearings are delayed)