Vandyke v. State
485 S.W.3d 507
Tex. App.2016Background
- Roger Dale VanDyke, a civilly committed sexually violent predator (SVP), pleaded guilty to violating civil commitment requirements and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
- He was charged for failing to complete outpatient SVP treatment and for being unsuccessfully discharged from the outpatient SVP treatment program under Tex. Health & Safety Code § 841.085 (pre-2015 version).
- The Texas Legislature amended Chapter 841 in 2015, removing failure-to-complete-treatment as a basis for criminal prosecution and limiting prosecutable violations to specified subsections.
- The amendment included savings language applying the limitation to offenses committed before, on, or after the effective date, except that a "final conviction" existing on the effective date remains unaffected.
- VanDyke argued the 2015 amendment decriminalized his conduct and required reversal; the State argued retroactive application improperly usurped the Governor’s clemency power.
- The trial court affirmed VanDyke’s conviction; this appeal addresses the retroactivity/decriminalization issue and multiple constitutional challenges to the SVP statutory scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (VanDyke) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive application / Decriminalization of conduct | 2015 amendment decriminalized failure-to-complete treatment; conviction should be reversed | Applying amendment to convictions pending on appeal improperly exercises the Governor’s clemency power (separation of powers) | Court agrees with precedent that amendment applies retroactively but holds that applying it to convictions pending on appeal usurps clemency power; supplemental issue overruled (amendment application to pending convictions unconstitutional) |
| Delegation, overbreadth, vagueness of §§ 841.082, .085, .141 | Statute unlawfully delegates authority; is overbroad and vague | Statutory scheme contains safeguards and has been upheld repeatedly | Court rejects challenges and declines to revisit prior holdings; issues overruled |
| Due process / OVSOM discretion and ultra vires discharge | OVSOM can unlawfully alter conditions; discharge was ultra vires and prosecution violates due process; vicarious liability | Statute provides procedural protections (counsel, experts, jury, review); commitments tailored to individual SVPs | Court holds due process was not violated; issues overruled |
| Mens rea for § 841.085 violations | Statute is strict liability | Penal Code gap-filling requires culpable mental state (intent, knowledge, or recklessness) | Court holds proof of intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct suffices; not strict liability |
| Scope of treatment condition ("exactingly") | Adding "exactingly" makes condition more restrictive and subjective, increasing prosecution risk | Trial court may tailor conditions; word did not increase prosecution risk | Court upholds the individualized commitment order; issue overruled |
| Disclosure of confidential information (§ 841.142) | Disclosure provision unconstitutionally authorizes release of confidential records | Statute permits limited disclosure to Multidisciplinary Team without abrogating confidentiality | Court follows precedent that disclosure for screening does not abrogate confidentiality; issue overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. State, 473 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2015) (held 2015 amendment to § 841.085 applies retroactively to convictions pending on appeal)
- Ex parte Giles, 502 S.W.2d 774 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (Legislature may not usurp Governor’s clemency power by statute reducing punishment for pending convictions)
- Lundgren v. State, 434 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (a conviction is not final while an appeal is pending)
- Armadillo Bail Bonds v. State, 802 S.W.2d 237 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (separation-of-powers analysis for branch usurpation and undue interference)
- Beasley v. Molett, 95 S.W.3d 590 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002) (upholding Chapter 841 against various constitutional challenges)
- In re Commitment of Fisher, 164 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2005) (trial court may tailor civil-commitment restrictions to the individual SVP)
- Goodwin v. State, 376 S.W.3d 259 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (noting § 841.085 does not specify mens rea)
- Harris v. State, 364 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (mens rea principles applied where statute silent)
- In re Commitment of Mullens, 92 S.W.3d 881 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002) (prior rejection of constitutional attacks on Chapter 841)