In Re the Care & Treatment of Twilleger
263 P.3d 199
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Johnny D. Twilleger was civilly committed as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the SVPA in September 2003 and has been housed in the SPTP at Larned and Osawatomie State Hospitals.
- Twilleger progressed through SPTP phases, reaching phase six (transition house) at Osawatomie, with some opportunity for community-like activities while still in SRS custody.
- Twilleger violated program rules at the transition house (including contact with a former victim) and was demoted from phase six to phase three and returned to inpatient treatment at Larned in December 2008.
- In September 2009, the SPTP clinical director opined that Twilleger’s mental abnormality had not changed enough to safely permit full transitional release; counsel were appointed for potential relief proceedings.
- An annual review hearing was convened on March 5, 2010; the district court considered motions for independent expert evaluation and for transitional release placement, and ultimately denied those motions and found no probable cause to order transitional release.
- Twilleger appealed, arguing (1) the Osawatomie transition housing constituted transitional release requiring SVPA procedures, (2) the district court erred in denying an independent examiner, and (3) there was not probable cause to conclude his condition had changed to permit transitional release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Osawatomie transition house placement equal transitional release? | Twilleger contends he was in transitional release via the transition house and was entitled to 59-29a08(g) protections before any removal to Larned. | The record shows no district court order into transitional release; phase six transition housing is not the same as transitional release and 59-29a08(g) does not apply. | No, transition house placement is not transitional release; 59-29a08(g) does not apply. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying appointment of an independent examiner under 59-29a08(a) | Twilleger argues the court should appoint an independent examiner at the annual review. | Court acted within discretion, relying on treatment staff evaluations and limiting cost given the record. | No abuse of discretion; court properly denied appointment of an independent examiner. |
| Is there probable cause to believe Twilleger’s condition has changed to warrant transitional release? | Twilleger contends evidence supports a change in condition making transitional release appropriate. | Evidence supports continued SVP status and lack of sufficient change; transition release not warranted. | Probable cause did not exist; no change to justify transitional release. |
Key Cases Cited
- Merryfield v. State, 44 Kan.App.2d 817 (2010) (deference to treatment staff in determining reasonable treatment methods)
- In re Care & Treatment of Miles, 42 Kan.App.2d 471 (2009) (district court may appoint independent examiner in SVPA proceedings)
- In re Care & Treatment of Sipe, 44 Kan.App.2d 584 (2010) (probable cause standard for second hearing on transitional release under SVPA)
- Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982) (deference to professional judgment in civilly committed individuals; due process)
- Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961) (balance of liberty and societal demands in constitutional analysis (cited in concurrence discussion))