In Re the Detention of Michael Ogden Michael Ogden
16-0726
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Michael Ogden pleaded guilty (2010) to assault with intent to commit sex abuse, was sentenced to 365 days (30 days to serve) and a ten-year "special sentence" under Iowa Code chapter 903B, then had probation revoked and served jail time.
- After release in January 2012 Ogden served the 903B special sentence in the community; in 2013 he was incarcerated for two years following a violation of that special sentence.
- The State filed a chapter 229A petition to civilly commit Ogden as a sexually violent predator on November 24, 2014 while he was confined after the 903B revocation.
- Ogden moved to dismiss, arguing he was not "presently confined" for a sexually violent offense under Iowa Code § 229A.4(1) when the petition was filed because his underlying confinement for the sexual offense had been discharged and he was confined only for a special-sentence revocation.
- The district court denied dismissal; a jury later found Ogden a sexually violent predator. On appeal the Iowa Court of Appeals reviewed only the legal question whether the State met the proper statutory predicate for filing the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ogden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ogden was "presently confined" under §229A.4(1) when petition filed | Special sentence is part of the sentence for the underlying sexual offense; revocation custody is thus confinement for the sexual offense so §229A.4(1) applies | "Presently confined" requires confinement for the underlying sexually violent offense itself; confinement after discharge for a 903B revocation is not the same, so §229A.4(1) does not apply | Reversed: "presently confined" requires confinement for the underlying sexual offense at time petition filed; 903B revocation custody does not qualify |
| Whether State could rely on alternate predicate of a "recent overt act" without alleging/amending petition | Argued on appeal/resistance that Ogden committed a recent overt act (coworker contact) | Ogden noted State did not plead or submit recent-overt-act to factfinder | Held: State did not allege or submit recent-overt-act to jury or seek amendment; court will not make finding on appeal — petition must be dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Det. of Gonzales, 658 N.W.2d 102 (Iowa 2003) (construes "presently confined" to require confinement for a sexually violent offense and mandates recent-overt-act protection when confinement is for a nonsexual offense)
- In re Det. of Stenzel, 827 N.W.2d 690 (Iowa 2013) (discusses chapter 229A statutory alternatives and continuity of "presently confined" doctrine)
- In re Det. of Willis, 691 N.W.2d 726 (Iowa 2005) (explains limited opportunity to commit overt acts while in secure confinement and relevance to burden of proof)
- State v. Harkins, 786 N.W.2d 498 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (addresses special sentence under chapter 903B and characterizes it as part of the overall sentencing scheme, though not dispositive for 229A analysis)
- In re Det. of Albrecht, 51 P.3d 73 (Wash. 2002) (refuses to allow civil-commitment predicate based on incarceration for a community-supervision violation without proof of a recent overt act)