In re Commitment of May
500 S.W.3d 515
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- In 2013 a jury found Alonzo May to be a sexually violent predator (SVP); the trial court committed him for outpatient treatment and supervised residence under Texas Health & Safety Code Chapter 841.
- In 2015 the Legislature enacted SB 746, creating the Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and a tiered supervision/treatment program that contemplates movement to more restrictive (including inpatient) settings or less restrictive settings based on behavior and treatment progress; SB 746 required courts to modify existing commitment orders to conform after notice and hearing.
- The State moved to place May into the new tiered program; the trial court initially denied the motion, then a visiting judge later ordered May released from civil commitment, finding the 2015 amendments retroactive, punitive, and violative of due process.
- The trial court’s factual findings included that May’s behavioral abnormality remained, that tiered inpatient placement would be more oppressive than his prior outpatient regimen, and that there was no credible evidence tiered inpatient treatment would benefit him more than outpatient care.
- The appellate State challenged the release order, arguing (1) the amended Chapter 841 is constitutional (not punitive or retroactive and provides due process), and (2) the trial court lacked factual support to order May’s release because no factfinder found his behavioral abnormality had changed.
- The appellate court reversed: it held the 2015 amendments are civil (not punitive), not unconstitutionally retroactive as applied, and do not deny due process; because no finding exists that May’s behavioral abnormality changed, the release order was improper and the case was remanded for modification committing May to the tiered program.
Issues
| Issue | May's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 746 (2015 amendments to Chapter 841) is punitive | May: Amendments impose more oppressive, indefinite inpatient restraints and thus are punitive | State: Amendments serve civil remedial purposes (treatment/public safety); statutory features distinguish it from criminal punishment | Held: Not punitive — statute remains civil under the Kennedy/Hendricks/Fisher framework |
| Whether SB 746 is unconstitutionally retroactive | May: Modification from outpatient to inpatient impairs vested contractual/settled expectations from his 2013 commitment | State: Commitment order already allowed treating agency to determine residence/treatment; amendments affect procedure/remedy, not vested right | Held: Not unconstitutionally retroactive as applied; legislative objectives and limited impairment weigh against retroactivity claim |
| Whether due process required jury or re-initiation of commitment before modifying treatment modality | May: Modification required re-initiation and jury factfinder; must have counsel/time/discovery/appeal rights | State: Amendments require notice and a hearing before judge; jury decides SVP status only at initial commitment; judge may modify terms | Held: No due process violation — statute provides notice/hearing before judge; May had counsel and discovery in practice; judge need not re-submit terms to jury |
| Whether trial court could release May absent a finding that his behavioral abnormality changed | May: Release proper because amendments unconstitutional | State: Release improper absent factual finding that May no longer has the qualifying behavioral abnormality | Held: Release improper — no finding that May’s behavioral abnormality changed; commitment may only be ended by appropriate factfinder finding change |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Commitment of Fisher, 164 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2005) (SVP statute is civil, not punitive)
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1997) (framework for distinguishing civil commitment from punishment)
- Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1963) (factors for determining punitive effect)
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. 2002) (distinguishing dangerous recidivists from those commitable due to mental abnormality)
- Beasley v. Molett, 95 S.W.3d 590 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002) (upholding SVP statute’s validity)
- In re Commitment of Cortez, 405 S.W.3d 929 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013) (treating-agency changes and court’s authority to order residence in approved facility)
- In re Commitment of Dodson, 434 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2014) (rejecting as-applied punitive challenge to commitment conditions)