Merryfield v. Sullivan
324 P.3d 1132
Kan. Ct. App.2014Background
- Petitioners Dustin J. Merryfield and Richard A. Quillen are involuntary participants in the Kansas Sexual Predator Treatment Program and filed habeas corpus petitions under K.S.A. 60-1501 challenging the constitutionality of policy RIGHT-106.
- RIGHT-106 prescribes procedures for reducing privilege levels, imposing general and purchase restrictions, and assigning restriction-level status for program residents.
- Neither Merryfield nor Quillen alleged that RIGHT-106 had ever been applied to them.
- The district court summarily dismissed both petitions and assessed court costs against the petitioners.
- Petitioners appealed the dismissal and the assessment of costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge RIGHT-106 | Merryfield/Quillen: RIGHT-106 procedures are unconstitutional and may affect them | State: Petitioners lack standing because RIGHT-106 has not been applied to them | Petitioners lack standing; dismissal affirmed |
| Requirement to exhaust administrative remedies | Merryfield/Quillen: (argued unconstitutionality; not applied) | State: exhaustion may be required | Court did not reach exhaustion because no procedure was initiated against petitioners |
| Proper statutory basis for assessing court costs | Merryfield/Quillen: (sought relief; objected to costs) | State/District Court: taxed costs under K.S.A. 60-1505 (general habeas statute) | District court erred in applying general statute; specific statute controls |
| Which entity bears costs of these petitions | Merryfield/Quillen: (opposed assessment to them) | State: costs should be assessed per applicable statute | Remanded: costs must be assessed to the county responsible under K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 59-29a23(c) and reimbursed via AG fund per statute |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baker, 281 Kan. 997 (2006) (standing requires application of challenged law to the litigant to avoid advisory opinions)
- State v. Montgomery, 295 Kan. 837 (2012) (Kansas courts do not issue advisory opinions)
- State v. Turner, 293 Kan. 1085 (2012) (specific statutory provisions control over general provisions)