Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Civil Commitment of Mable

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

August 5, 2013

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Marcus Mable

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

McLeod County District Court File No. 43-PR-11-2016

Jennifer Lynn Thon, Jones and Magnus, Mankato, Minnesota (for appellant)

Amy Elizabeth Olson, Glencoe, Minnesota (for respondent McLeod County)

Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Stoneburner, Judge; and Bjorkman, Judge.

PETERSON, Judge

In this appeal from a district court order that commits appellant as a person who is mentally ill and dangerous (MID), appellant argues that (1) his aggravated-robbery offenses cannot constitute overt acts for purposes of his commitment because the robberies did not result from his mental illness, and (2) verbal threats without corresponding physical action are insufficient to constitute an overt act. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Marcus Mable was born in 1979 and at the time of his commitment was 32 years old. Appellant has an extensive criminal history. In addition to juvenile adjudications in Wisconsin, appellant was convicted of first-degree aggravated robbery in 1998 and was ordered to serve 36 months in prison. Appellant did not complete high school because he went to prison. In 2000, appellant was convicted of felony aiding and abetting simple robbery and misdemeanor fifth-degree assault. In 2001, appellant was again convicted of first-degree aggravated robbery. The 1998 and 2001 aggravated-robbery convictions both involved home invasions during which appellant threatened the home occupants with a firearm.

While in prison, appellant was civilly committed as mentally ill in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. Appellant spent the majority of his prison time in either segregation or the prison mental-health unit. Appellant's conduct while incarcerated included many incidents of assaultive and threatening behavior, including threatening to kill a mental-health therapist who had worked with appellant, and the therapist's children, because appellant believed that the therapist raped appellant.

In December 2011, just before appellant completed serving his sentence for the 2001 first-degree aggravated-robbery conviction, respondent McLeod County petitioned to have appellant committed as MID. Appellant agreed to be hospitalized at the Anoka Regional Metro Treatment Center pending the commitment trial. In March 2012, the county sought a Jarvis order to administer neuroleptic medication. In April 2012, the district court held a commitment hearing and considered the Jarvis petition.

At the hearing, appellant did not dispute that he is mentally ill but argued that he is not dangerous and that civil commitment as a person who is mentally ill is an acceptable less-restrictive alternative to an MID commitment. Appellant is currently diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and antisocial personality disorder. Two court-appointed examiners who testified at the hearing agreed that appellant is mentally ill and needs further treatment under civil commitment, but they disagreed about whether commitment as a person who is mentally ill is an acceptable less-restrictive alternative to an MID commitment.

The district court determined that appellant met the standards for commitment as MID. The court found that appellant's 1998 and 2001 first-degree aggravated-robbery offenses constitute overt acts causing or attempting to cause serious physical harm to another. The court incorporated by reference and attached to its order the addendum to one of the examiner's report, which details appellant's assaultive and threatening behavior while in prison. In a separate order, the court approved the Jarvis petition authorizing involuntary use of neuroleptic medications.

Following a final commitment hearing, the district court found that appellant continued to meet the statutory criteria for an MID commitment and committed appellant as MID ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.