Breaking News: Panel Says Legality of Custody 'Irrelevant' to Sex Offender Commitment

6-15-2010 New York:

ALBANY - Whether or not inmates are being held illegally in state prisons is "irrelevant" to the state's authority to commit them to secure mental hospitals as dangerous sexual offenders, a divided New York Court of Appeals held today.

A 4-3 majority ruled that the civil commitment statute for sex offenders, Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law, applies to "dangerous" inmates who are "detained" sex offenders, even if they are being held illegally.

Two inmates argued they were imprisoned illegally after their release from prison on violations of terms of post-release supervision were added by Department of Correctional Services employees. The Court had ruled in Matter of Garner v. New York State Depart. of Correctional Servs., 10 NY3d 358 (2008), that such terms must be pronounced by judges in court during sentencing and not after the fact.

However, the Court here said the state could proceed with involuntary commitment proceedings.

"No doubt it is often reasonable to read 'custody' as implying 'lawful custody,'" Judge Robert S. Smith wrote for the majority in the Court's single ruling in People &c. ex rel. Joseph II v. Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, 95, and Matter of State of New York v. Humberto G., 96. "Here, however, the statute is best read as making no distinction between those properly and improperly confined."

The Article 10 process for inmates was developed by the Legislature in early 2007 because of fears that dangerous sex offenders would not be found to have the "mental illnesses" that apply to the involuntary commitment standards for all people deemed to be a danger to themselves or others under Article 9 of the Mental Hygiene Law.

The Court of Appeals recognized in its ruling State of N.Y. ex. rel. Harkavy v. Consilvio, 7 NY3d 607 (2006), also known as "Harkavy I," that the more general provisions of Article 9 do not apply to mentally ill prison inmates, Judge Smith wrote.

"There is no injustice in holding prisoners situated as Joseph and Humberto are to be within article 10's scope," the Court ruled. "The point of the prisoner/non-prisoner distinction we recognized in Harkavy I is not that one group should be treated more or less favorably than the other, but that different situations may call for different procedures."

Judges Victoria A. Graffeo, Susan Phillips Read and Eugene F. Pigott Jr. joined the opinion.

In a sharp dissent, Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick contended that the majority's arguments that Article 10 proceedings can be brought against illegally detained inmates are "not convincing."

"That the majority views the legality of the custody 'irrelevant' is troubling; such a result encourages and rewards DOCS errors," Judge Ciparick wrote. "For instance, if a DOCS inmate 'slips through the cracks' or DOCS 'miscalculates' a sentence to extend beyond the actually imposed sentence, that illegal detention and custody could, under the majority's rationale, serve as the basis for an article 10 proceeding. That result would be untenable."

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and Judge Theodore T. Jones Jr. joined the dissent.

Today's ruling reversed decisions in both cases by Appellate Division panels. ..Source.. Joel Stashenko