From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Springett v. Dist. Ct. Pottawattamie

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Dec 30, 2002
No. 2-577 / 01-1432 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2002)

Opinion

No. 2-577 / 01-1432.

Filed December 30, 2002.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, JAMES S. HECKERMAN, Judge.

Respondent in certiorari action challenges the no probable cause finding at his annual review hearing. WRIT ANNULLED.

Mark Smith, First Assistant State Public Defender, and Thomas J. Gaul, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Scott D. Brown, Laura Roan, and Roxann M. Ryan, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and HUITINK, VOGEL, ZIMMER, MILLER, HECHT, VAITHESWARAN, and EISENHAUER, JJ. MAHAN, J., takes no part.


Robert Springett challenges the no probable cause finding at his annual review hearing. We affirm. Background Facts and Proceedings . In February 2000, Robert Springett was civilly committed after a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator within the purview of Iowa Code chapter 229A (1999). Once committed, Springett was entitled to an annual examination, annual review, and probable cause hearing on his status. Iowa Code § 229A.8(1), (2). During his first annual review and probable cause hearing in June 2001, the court received the assessment of the Civil Commitment Unit, performed by Dr. Jim Gardner, as well as the report of Dr. Dan Rogers, an expert retained by Springett.

The court determined Springett had not met his burden of showing probable cause to believe his mental abnormality had so changed he was safe to be at large, and would not engage in predatory or sexually violent acts if discharged. Id. at § 229A.8(4). It therefore denied him a further, final hearing on the issue of his release. Id. Springett filed both an appeal and a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Iowa Supreme Court granted the petition and ordered briefing on the issue of the proper avenue for invoking appellate court review.

Scope of Review . We review an action tried at law for correction of errors at law. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4.

Method of Review . Springett urges us to find that an appeal, rather than a petition for a writ of certiorari, is the proper method for seeking review of the no probable cause finding. He argues that because the finding denied him a further, final hearing, the district court's ruling constituted a final order subject to direct appeal. See Iowa R.App.P. 6.1(1). We cannot agree.

We find persuasive the reasoning of In re Detention of Petersen, 980 P.2d 1204 (Wash. 1999). In construing a civil commitment statute very similar to Iowa Code chapter 229A, the Washington Supreme Court noted their statute placed offenders under "continuing court jurisdiction . . . until their unconditioned release." Id. at 1213. Rejecting the respondent's argument that the trial court's probable cause decision was a final judgment, the supreme court noted:

Although the Iowa statue does not expressly provide for continuing court jurisdiction, such is implied from the nature of the annual review proceedings. See Iowa Code § 229A.8(1), (2) (granting respondents a right to an annual examination and court review without the necessity of any triggering event, such as the filing of a petition).

"A final judgment is a judgment that ends the litigation, leaving nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.". . . In view of the statutory declaration that the courts have continuing jurisdiction of committed sexually violent predators, the order in this case cannot be a final judgment.
Id. at 1214. (citations omitted). This reasoning finds support generally in the language of chapter 229A, as well as our rules of appellate procedure. See Iowa Code § 229A.8; Iowa R.App.P. 6.1. The petition for a writ of certiorari was the appropriate vehicle for review of the probable cause decision.

Probable Cause . Springett argues the court erred when it found probable cause did not exist to believe he was safe to be at large and would not reoffend. Springett's primary focus is on Dr. Rogers' concerns about his mental health, and the doctor's corresponding belief Springett would fare better in an alternative, outpatient placement. However, the annual review statute is very narrowly drawn. The only issue for the district court's consideration is whether "probable cause exists to believe that the person's mental abnormality has so changed that the person is safe to be at large and will not engage in predatory acts or sexually violent offenses if discharged." Iowa Code § 229A.8(4).

If the court finds probable cause does not exist, the commitment in a secure facility continues. If probable cause is found, the respondent is granted a final hearing at which time the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the commitment should continue. Iowa Code § 229A.8(5). In either event, there is no provision for alternative treatment. Either the respondent is safe to be at large if fully discharged, or he is not.

We note, however, that recent statutory changes to section 229A.8 provide for a transitional release program as an alternative to discharge. See S.F. 2286, § 10 (effective April 30, 2002).

In such context, very little if any of the evidence indicated Springett's condition had so changed that, if discharged, he would be safe to be at large and would not reoffend. The report of Dr. Rogers, Springett's own expert, stated only that Springett "has apparently been highly motivated to improve and it is quite likely that his risk of re-offending has decreased." This somewhat terse and conclusory statement does not appear to be supported by the remainder of the report, which noted Springett had not really improved much in his fifteen months of commitment, had actually "become more angry and less comfortable with people during this time," had deteriorated emotionally, did "not have very good insight into some of his problematic behavior," and was not confident in his own ability to "deal with everyday life."

Dr. Gardner's report admitted Springett had "shown evidence of some cognitive and behavior changes[, and] made improvements in several critical areas," but concluded Springett was "in need of much further treatment in order to gain control of his aggressive impulses and his sexual impulses." Dr. Gardner opined release at that point would be premature and "most likely lead to further sexually violent offenses against women and others." He concluded that, if released, Springett would be "more likely than not" to reoffend in a sexually violent manner.

Based on the evidence before it, we cannot find the district court erred when it determined probable cause did not exist to grant a final hearing.

WRIT ANNULLED.


Summaries of

Springett v. Dist. Ct. Pottawattamie

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Dec 30, 2002
No. 2-577 / 01-1432 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2002)
Case details for

Springett v. Dist. Ct. Pottawattamie

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT SPRINGETT, Plaintiff, v. IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POTTAWATTAMIE…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Dec 30, 2002

Citations

No. 2-577 / 01-1432 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2002)