IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 06–1960
Filed November 7, 2008
JOHN CARMODY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR HENRY COUNTY,
Defendant.
________________________________________________________________________
Certiorari to the Iowa District Court for Henry County, R. David
Fahey, Judge.
Plaintiff challenges the district court’s denial of his request for a
final hearing at his annual review. WRIT SUSTAINED, AND CASE
REMANDED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Steven L. Addington,
Assistant Public Defender, for plaintiff.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General and Linda J. Hines and Becky
Goettsch, Assistant Attorneys General, for defendant.
2
PER CURIAM.
By petition for writ of certiorari, John Carmody, a civilly committed
sexual predator, challenges a district court judgment denying his request
for a final hearing to determine whether he is eligible for release. He
claims the district court exceeded its jurisdiction and acted illegally when
it weighed conflicting expert opinions at his annual review to determine
he was not entitled to a final hearing. We conclude the controlling
statute does not require the committed person prove at the annual
review a likelihood of winning at his final hearing. The statute governing
annual reviews requires the committed person show there is admissible
evidence that could lead a fact finder to find reasonable doubt on the
issue of whether his mental abnormality has changed. We therefore
sustain the writ.
I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings.
John Carmody was civilly committed as a sexually violent predator
under the Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act, Iowa Code
chapter 229A in 2002 and recommitted in 2004. According to the
stipulated facts, Carmody was convicted of two counts of sexual abuse in
the third degree in 1990 and two counts of rape in 1976. Prior to
commitment, Carmody was diagnosed with antisocial and narcissistic
personality disorders, which predispose him to commit future sexually
violent offenses. Since his 2002 commitment, Carmody has had four
annual reviews, and in each one, the court has denied Carmody’s request
for a final hearing. At his September 2006 annual review, the State
submitted evidence from a licensed psychologist who had worked with
Carmody stating he had refused to participate in all aspects of the sex
offender treatment and thus was not suitable for placement in the
3
transitional release program. Carmody submitted a report by Dr.
Richard Wollert that concluded Carmody’s mental abnormality had
changed such that he is not likely to commit sexually violent offenses if
released. Wollert’s conclusion was based primarily on actuarial data
indicating the risk of recidivism declines with age, and Carmody’s risk of
reoffending, given his age of sixty-seven, was below ten percent. The
district court weighed the evidence presented by both parties and
determined Carmody had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence
he was entitled to a final hearing. Carmody filed an application for writ
of certiorari with this court, claiming the district court exceeded its
jurisdiction when it weighed evidence to determine he was not entitled to
a final hearing.
II. Scope of Review.
In a certiorari case, we review the district court’s action for
correction of errors at law. Weissenburger v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 740 N.W.2d
431, 434 (Iowa 2007). We may examine “only the jurisdiction of the
district court and the legality of its actions.” Christensen v. Iowa Dist.
Ct., 578 N.W.2d 675, 678 (Iowa 1998). An “illegality exists when the
court’s factual findings lack substantial evidentiary support, or when the
court has not properly applied the law.” Id. We accept as true the
district court’s factual findings, if well supported. State Pub. Defender v.
Iowa Dist. Ct., 644 N.W.2d 354, 356 (Iowa 2002).
III. Merits.
In Johnson v. Iowa District Court, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2008), we
interpreted Iowa Code section 229A.8 to require the committed person
show there is admissible evidence that could lead a fact finder to find
reasonable doubt on the issue of whether his mental abnormality has
4
changed. Johnson, ___ N.W.2d at ___. If the committed person meets
this standard at the annual review, he is entitled to a final hearing. Id.
Iowa Code chapter 229A allows for the commitment of sexually
violent predators in order “to protect the public, to respect the needs of
the victims of sexually violent offenses, and to encourage full, meaningful
participation of sexually violent predators in treatment programs.” Iowa
Code § 229A.1 (2007). Under section 229A.8, the committed person is
entitled to an annual review in which he may request a final hearing to
determine whether he is eligible for release or transitional release. At an
annual review, the committed person bears the burden of proof to show
by a “preponderance of the evidence” there is “competent evidence which
would lead a reasonable person to believe a final hearing should be held.”
Id. § 229A.8(5). If the committed person meets this burden, he is entitled
to a final hearing. At the final hearing, the state bears the burden of
proof to show “beyond a reasonable doubt” the committed person’s
mental abnormality has not changed.1 Id. § 229A.8(6). The committed
person has no burden to prove anything at the final hearing. Id. If, at
the final hearing, the fact finder determines there is a reasonable doubt
as to whether the committed person still suffers from a mental
abnormality, the commitment ends. Id.
In determining whether the committed person is entitled to a final
hearing, the district court should apply the following standard: if the
1The final hearing on whether the committed person is eligible for transitional
release is different. Iowa Code § 229A.8A. The prerequisites for the transitional release
program include, among other things, that the committed person’s “mental abnormality
is no longer such that the person is a high risk to reoffend.” Id. § 229A.8A(2)(a).
5
committed person presents competent2 evidence that could lead a fact
finder to find reasonable doubt on the issue of whether his mental
abnormality has changed, such that he is unlikely to engage in sexually
violent offenses, then the committed person should be granted a final
hearing. Johnson, ___ N.W.2d at ___. Carmody has met this standard by
submitting the report of Dr. Wollert. We sustain the writ of certiorari
and remand the case to determine whether Carmody is entitled to a final
hearing under the standard set forth in Johnson. See Johnson, ___
N.W.2d at ___.
IV. Conclusion.
We interpret the statute governing annual reviews to require the
committed person show there is admissible evidence that could lead a
fact finder to find reasonable doubt on the issue of whether his mental
abnormality has changed. The writ of certiorari to this court is
sustained. The district court acted illegally when it denied Carmody’s
request for a final hearing.
WRIT SUSTAINED, AND CASE REMANDED.
This opinion shall not be published.
2Competent evidence means admissible evidence, not credible evidence. See
Black’s Law Dictionary 596 (8th ed. 2004); see also State v. Decker, 744 N.W.2d 346,
356 (Iowa 2008).