In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Maurice Williams

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A20-1485 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Maurice Williams.

Filed March 29, 2021 Affirmed Kirk, Judge* Dakota County District Court File No. 19HA-PR-20-509 Victoria M. Herr, Herr Law Office, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant) Kathryn M. Keena, Acting Dakota County Attorney, Heather Pipenhagen, Assistant County Attorney, Hastings, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Kirk, Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION KIRK, Judge On appeal from his commitment as a person who has a mental illness and is dangerous to the public, appellant argues that he was not competent to waive his rights when he purportedly did so; and that the record does not support either his commitment or his continued commitment. We affirm.

*Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

DECISION In 2020, the state petitioned for the civil commitment of appellant Maurice Williams as what is now known as a person who has a mental illness and is dangerous to the public pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 253B.18 (2018), and appellant stipulated to this commitment.

Appellant now challenges his commitment, arguing that he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently admit to the petition or waive his right to a contested case. Appellant also claims that the county did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that appellant meets the statutory criteria for commitment as mentally ill and dangerous.

Appellant’s stipulation or his competency to stipulate to commitment were not challenged before or decided by the district court, and we therefore do not consider those arguments. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that appellate courts generally do not address matters not previously presented to and considered by the district court); see also Beaulieu v. Minnesota Dep’t of Human Servs., 825 N.W.2d 716, (Minn. 2013) (applying Thiele in a commitment appeal). A motion challenging appellant’s stipulation may properly be brought before the district court pursuant to rule 60.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. See In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan, N.W.2d 635, 643 (Minn. 2012) (holding claims that lack procedures under commitment act may be brought under rule 60.02).

Even if we were to consider appellant’s arguments, we are asked to apply theories of criminal procedure to determine that his stipulation is invalid, which we decline to do.

In re Civil Commitment of Rannow, 749 N.W.2d 396, 399 (Minn. App. 2008) (declining to use criminal plea standard for evaluating validity of stipulation to civil commitment).

Appellant also argues that the record does not support his commitment as respondent did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that appellant was dangerous.

Appellant’s stipulation to the commitment again proves insurmountable, as the need to develop the record was obviated by his stipulation. Id. Affirmed.