State v. Johnson
2008 Minn. LEXIS 62, 2008 WL 397666, 744 N.W.2d 376 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant is not entitled to custody credit for time spent in a secure treatment facility if that placement is based upon a prior civil commitment for an indefinite term and is unrelated to the criminal charges for which the defendant was sentenced, even if the facility is the functional equivalent of a jail.
Facts:
- Joshua Lawrence Johnson was under civil commitment as a sexual offender in the Minnesota Security Hospital in St. Peter (St. Peter) for an indeterminate period.
- On November 29, 2004, while confined at St. Peter, Johnson was arrested for making terroristic threats against various staff members at the facility.
- Sometime between his arrest and May 3, 2005, Johnson was transferred from St. Peter to the Moose Lake Treatment Center, Minnesota Sex Offender Program (Moose Lake), a similar secure treatment facility, with no indication the transfer was related to the criminal charges.
- Johnson's civil commitment status, which confined him to a secure treatment facility, remained unchanged and indefinite throughout this period.
Procedural Posture:
- Four months after his arrest, Joshua Lawrence Johnson was charged with seven counts of terroristic threats and one count of assault.
- On September 7, 2005, Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of terroristic threats.
- On October 18, 2005, the district court (trial court) sentenced Johnson and denied his request for custody credit for time spent in Moose Lake.
- Johnson appealed the denial of custody credit to the Minnesota Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the district court's denial of credit but vacated Johnson's sentence on other grounds and remanded for a jury trial on an upward departure issue.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court (highest court) granted review solely on the custody credit issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a criminal defendant receive custody credit for time spent in a secure treatment facility when their placement there results from a prior civil commitment and is unrelated to the criminal charges for which they are sentenced?
Opinions:
Majority - MEYER, Justice
No, a criminal defendant is not entitled to custody credit for time spent in a secure treatment facility when the placement is based upon a prior civil commitment and is unrelated to the criminal charges for which they are sentenced. The court reasoned that the policy behind custody credit is to ensure fairness and proportionality, preventing de facto consecutive sentences, disparities for indigent persons, and prosecutorial manipulation. While Johnson’s confinement was in a facility functionally equivalent to a jail, his situation differed from precedents like Asfaha and Arden because his confinement stemmed from an indefinite civil commitment for treatment, not as a condition of probation or a determinate criminal sentence. The court emphasized that Johnson’s confinement terms were not altered by the criminal charges, meaning the criminal sentence did not prolong his overall confinement or serve as a de facto consecutive sentence. The court declined to conflate treatment, which was the purpose of his civil commitment, with criminal punishment. Furthermore, his transfer to Moose Lake was not shown to be related to the criminal charges or to constitute custody separate from his civil commitment.
Dissenting - PAGE, Justice
Yes, Johnson should receive custody credit. Justice Page dissented, arguing that the record suggests Johnson's transfer from St. Peter Security Hospital to Moose Lake Treatment Center was for purposes of punishment related to the charges against him, thereby entitling him to custody credit.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of custody credit, particularly for individuals civilly committed to secure treatment facilities. It establishes that a pre-existing, indefinite civil commitment for treatment does not automatically qualify for custody credit against a subsequent criminal sentence, even if the facility is prison-like. The decision reinforces the crucial distinction between confinement for treatment under civil commitment and confinement for criminal punishment, emphasizing that custody credit is meant to prevent unfair extensions of incarceration directly attributable to the criminal proceedings. This ruling helps prevent civilly committed individuals from potentially receiving a 'discount' on their criminal sentences for time they would have spent confined regardless of the new charges.
