Man denied discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person after taking Scientology courses instead of Minnesota Sex Offender Program

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
Man denied discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person after taking Scientology courses instead of Minnesota Sex Offender Program

Minnesota Court of Appeals denies discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) for man who participated in Scientology courses instead of Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP).

----------------------------------------------------------------

ETA: Perhaps more precisely, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Commitment Appeal Panel's dismissal of the petition for provisional discharge or full discharge from civil commitment as a SDP. Thus, as a practical matter, the Court of Appeals effectively denied discharge from civil commitment as a SDP.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Screenshot_20210831-084947_1630426040072.png


STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

21-0270

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brad Ronald Stevens.

Filed August 30, 2021
Affirmed
Reyes, Judge

Commitment Appeal Panel
File No. AP19-9157


https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/Appellate/Court of Appeals/Standard opinions/OPa210270-083021.pdf


* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Appellant argues that a Commitment Appeal Panel (the CAP) erred by dismissing his petition for provisional discharge or full discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP).

[SNIP]

Appellant submitted a self-authored “SRB report.” Much of this report consists of appellant’s legal and factual arguments, including assertions that he engages in prosocial behavior, does not require treatment, participates in Scientology courses instead of MSOP’s treatment program, and does not suffer from a mental illness or sexual disorder.

[SNIP]

Finally, appellant submitted letters of support from his relatives and a member of the Church of Scientology.

[SNIP]

Appellant argues that he engages in alternative treatment, including meeting individually with a primary therapist, and takes Scientology courses. But nothing in the individual-therapy records indicates that appellant no longer needs treatment in his current setting. To the contrary, his MSOP therapists conclude that he needs further treatment in his current setting. And appellant’s uncorroborated, conclusory assertion that Scientology courses address his risk factors cannot satisfy his burden. Poole, 921 N.W.2d at 69.

[SNIP]

Appellant also relies on letters of support from relatives and the Church of Scientology to argue that his provisional-discharge plan adequately protects the public and will assist his transition to society. These letters show that appellant has support in place if he is released from MSOP. But they do not demonstrate that appellant’s provisional-discharge plan sufficiently protects the public or that appellant’s dangerousness has been reduced.

[SNIP]

IV.The CAP did not err by dismissing appellant’s petition for full discharge.

Appellant asserts that: (1) he no longer needs treatment because he has no sexual disorder, his diagnosed mental disorder does not impact his behavior, and his present mental status shows he does not need treatment and (2) he is no longer a danger to the public because he has low risk-of-recidivism scores and has shown good behavior at MSOP. We are not persuaded.

A person committed as an SDP “shall not be discharged unless . . . the committed person is capable of making an acceptable adjustment to open society, is no longer dangerous to the public, and is no longer in need of treatment and supervision.” Minn.

Stat. § 253D.31. But “the criteria for a provisional discharge are more lenient than the criteria for a [full] discharge.” Larson, 847 N.W.2d at 535-36. Therefore, the committed person’s failure to make a prima facie case for provisional discharge means that he cannot succeed on his petition for full discharge. Id. at 536. Because appellant failed to make a prima facie case for provisional discharge, we conclude that he likewise failed to make a prima facie case for full discharge.

[SNIP]

Affirmed

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

/
 
Last edited:

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
Minnesota Court of Appeals denies discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) for man who participated in Scientology courses instead of Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP).

----------------------------------------------------------------

ETA: Perhaps more precisely, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Commitment Appeal Panel's dismissal of the petition for provisional discharge or full discharge from civil commitment as a SDP. Thus, as a practical matter, the Court of Appeals effectively denied discharge from civil commitment as a SDP.

----------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 13905


STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

21-0270

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brad Ronald Stevens.

Filed August 30, 2021
Affirmed
Reyes, Judge

Commitment Appeal Panel
File No. AP19-9157


https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/Appellate/Court of Appeals/Standard opinions/OPa210270-083021.pdf


* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Appellant argues that a Commitment Appeal Panel (the CAP) erred by dismissing his petition for provisional discharge or full discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP).

[SNIP]

Appellant submitted a self-authored “SRB report.” Much of this report consists of appellant’s legal and factual arguments, including assertions that he engages in prosocial behavior, does not require treatment, participates in Scientology courses instead of MSOP’s treatment program, and does not suffer from a mental illness or sexual disorder.

[SNIP]

Finally, appellant submitted letters of support from his relatives and a member of the Church of Scientology.

[SNIP]

Appellant argues that he engages in alternative treatment, including meeting individually with a primary therapist, and takes Scientology courses. But nothing in the individual-therapy records indicates that appellant no longer needs treatment in his current setting. To the contrary, his MSOP therapists conclude that he needs further treatment in his current setting. And appellant’s uncorroborated, conclusory assertion that Scientology courses address his risk factors cannot satisfy his burden. Poole, 921 N.W.2d at 69.

[SNIP]

Appellant also relies on letters of support from relatives and the Church of Scientology to argue that his provisional-discharge plan adequately protects the public and will assist his transition to society. These letters show that appellant has support in place if he is released from MSOP. But they do not demonstrate that appellant’s provisional-discharge plan sufficiently protects the public or that appellant’s dangerousness has been reduced.

[SNIP]

IV.The CAP did not err by dismissing appellant’s petition for full discharge.

Appellant asserts that: (1) he no longer needs treatment because he has no sexual disorder, his diagnosed mental disorder does not impact his behavior, and his present mental status shows he does not need treatment and (2) he is no longer a danger to the public because he has low risk-of-recidivism scores and has shown good behavior at MSOP. We are not persuaded.

A person committed as an SDP “shall not be discharged unless . . . the committed person is capable of making an acceptable adjustment to open society, is no longer dangerous to the public, and is no longer in need of treatment and supervision.” Minn.

Stat. § 253D.31. But “the criteria for a provisional discharge are more lenient than the criteria for a [full] discharge.” Larson, 847 N.W.2d at 535-36. Therefore, the committed person’s failure to make a prima facie case for provisional discharge means that he cannot succeed on his petition for full discharge. Id. at 536. Because appellant failed to make a prima facie case for provisional discharge, we conclude that he likewise failed to make a prima facie case for full discharge.

[SNIP]

Affirmed

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

/
An earlier 2011 Minnesota Court of Appeals decision explains why Stevens was civily committed:





Screenshot_20210831-124412_1630439189621.png


* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Stevens’s civil commitment is based on three incidents of criminal sexual conduct. In May 1993, a Martin County jury found Stevens guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct for an incident occurring in January 1991. Also in May 1993, Stevens pleaded guilty in Martin County to first-degree criminal sexual conduct for an incident occurring in July or August 1991. The district court imposed concurrent sentences of 134 months of imprisonment for each offense. In March 2003, Stevens pleaded guilty in the Goodhue County District Court to attempted fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct for an incident occurring in November 2002. The district court imposed a sentence of 36 months of imprisonment.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *:


This is the man: (1) for whom a member of the Church of Scientology submitted a letter to the Commitment Appeal Panel; (2) who the Church of Scientology had on course; and (3) who the Scientology courses allegedly cured such that he was no longer a sexually dangerous person (SDP), and could be freed.

How did Stevens get on course?

/
 
Last edited:
Top