In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Alexander Mark Martinelli.

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-0378

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Alexander Mark Martinelli.

Filed July 24, 2017
Affirmed
Johnson, Judge

Judicial Appeal Panel
File No. AP15-9033

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, William Young, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota; and

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Elizabeth Beltaos, John L. Kirwin,
Assistant County Attorneys, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant Commissioner of
Human Services)

Brian C. Southwell, Brian Southwell, Ltd., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent
Alexander Mark Martinelli)

Considered and decided by Cleary, Chief Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Reilly, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
JOHNSON, Judge
Alexander Mark Martinelli is civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person. He
petitioned for either a transfer to the department of human services’ Community
Preparation Services program, a provisional discharge, or a discharge. The judicial appeal
panel denied his petition with respect to a provisional discharge or a discharge but granted
his petition with respect to a transfer to the Community Preparation Services program. The
2
commissioner appeals. We conclude that the evidence supports the judicial appeal panel’s
findings of fact and, therefore, affirm.
FACTS
Martinelli had a troubled childhood with inconsistent living arrangements, drug
abuse, and an extensive history of sexual experiences. In 1993, Martinelli committed a
series of sexual assaults against several adolescent male s. After he pleaded guilty to
criminal charges, he was admitted to an outpatient sex-offender treatment program but was
terminated from the program approximately three months later. In 1994, Martinelli fled to
Nova Scotia , where he sexually assaulted two adolescent males and two adolescent
females. In January 1998, the Hennepin County District Court granted a petition to civilly
commit Martinelli as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) for an indeterminate period of
time. This court affirmed. In re Martinelli, No. C6-98-569, 1998 WL 613845 (Minn. App.
Sept. 15, 1998).
In recent years, Martinelli has been in the custody of the commissioner of human
services at its facility in St. Peter. In April 2014, Martinelli petitioned for a transfer to an
unsecured in-patient facility in the department’s Community Preparation Services program
(CPS), a provisional discharge, or a discharge. The special review board conducted a
hearing and recommended that the commissioner deny the petition.
In April 2015, Martinelli requested reconsideration by the judicial appeal panel.
The judicial appeal panel conducted a hearing in March 2016. With the assistance of
counsel, Martinelli called two witnesses: Thomas Alberg, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist
who was the court-appointed examiner, and himself. After Martinelli rested his case, the
3
commissioner moved to dismiss the petition with respect to the requests for provisional
discharge or discharge , and Hennepin County joined in the motion. The judicial appeal
panel granted the motion.
In October 2016, the judicial appeal panel resumed the hearing and received
additional evidence. Martinelli again called Alberg and again testified in support of his
petition. The commissioner called Cassandra Lind, a licensed psychologist and forensic
evaluation supervisor for the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP); Christopher
Schiffer, clinical director for MSOP; and Michelle Sexe, operations manager at CPS.
In January 2017, the judicial appeal panel issued a ten-page order in which it granted
Martinelli’s petition with respect to his request for a transfer to CPS. The commissioner
appeals.
D E C I S I O N
The commissioner argues that the judicial appeal panel erred by granting
Martinelli’s petition with respect to his request for a transfer to CPS.
A.
As an initial matter , the commissioner argues that the judicial appeal panel’s
findings are not sufficiently particularized to allow meaningful appellate review . The
commissioner relies on this court’s opinion in In re Civil Commitment of Spicer , 853
N.W.2d 803 (Minn. App. 2014), in which we concluded that the district court’s findings
were insufficient in three ways. Id. at 809-12. First, we reasoned that “the vast majority
of the district court’s findings are not truly fin dings of fact” because the district court
merely recited the testimony of the witnesses. Id. at 810. Second, we reasoned that the
4
district court’s true findings were conclusory in nature. Id. Third, we reasoned that the
district court’s true findings w ere not meaningfully tied to the district court’s ultimate
conclusions of law. Id. at 811. Accordingly, we remanded the matter to the district court
for additional findings of fact. Id. at 813.
In this case, the commissioner argues that the judicial appeal panel’s findings of fact
suffer from the same deficiencies. The commissioner’s argument might have merit if we
were to confine our review to the statements under the heading “Findings of Fact.” The 18
paragraphs in that part of the order summarize th e evidence without stating the facts that
the panel believes to be true. But the judicial appeal panel made true findings of fact in
another part of the order, under the heading “Conclusions of Law.” There the judicial
appeal panel made credibility determinations and stated the facts that it believes to be true.
Whether those findings of fact are labeled “findings of fact” or “conclusions of law” is
immaterial; the nature of the s tatements determines how they are treated on appeal . See
Bissell v. Bissel l, 291 Minn. 348, 35 1 n.1, 191 N.W.2d 425, 427 n.1 (1971); Cushing v.
Cable, 54 Minn. 6, 8, 55 N.W. 736, 737 (1893); Otte v. Otte, 368 N.W.2d 293, 297 (Minn.
App. 1985).
Thus, the judicial appeal panel made findings of fact that are sufficient to allow
meaningful appellate review.
B.
The commissioner argues that the judicial appeal panel’s findings are not supported
by the evidence.
5
A person who is committed as an SDP may be transferred to CPS only if “ the
transfer is appropriate. ” Minn. Stat. § 253D.29, subd. 1(a) (2016). That determination
must be based on five factors:
(1) the person’s clinical progress and present
treatment needs;

(2) the need for security to accomplish continuing
treatment;

(3) the need for continued institutionalization;

(4) which facility can best meet the person’s needs;
and

(5) whether transfer can be accomplished with a
reasonable degree of safety for the public.

Id., subd. 1(b).
A person who is committed as an SDP may petition the special review board for a
transfer. Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subd. 2 (2016). “The special review board shall hold a
hearing on each petition before issuing a recommendation,” id., subd. 3(a), and “shall issue
a report with written findings of fact . . . recommend[ing] denial or approval of t he
petition,” id., subd. 4. If the special review board recommends denial of the petition, the
committed person “ may petition the judicial appeal panel . . . for a rehearing and
reconsideration of” the recommendation. Minn. Stat. § 253D.28, subd. 1(a) (2016). Before
the judicial appeal panel, the committed person “must establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that the transfer is appropriate.” Id., subd. 2(e). “A party aggrieved by an order
of the [judicial] appeal panel may appeal that order” to this court. Id., subd. 4.
6
The parties dispute the appropriate standard of review for this appeal. The
commissioner urges the court to apply a de novo standard of review; Martinelli urges the
court to apply a clear -error standard of review. Martinelli is correct that, given the
procedural history of the case and the nature of the commissioner’s arguments, the
appropriate standard of review is a clear-error standard of review. Applying that standard
of review to the findings of the judicial appeal panel, we “‘examine the record to determine
whether the evidence as a whole sustains the appeal panels’ findings. ’” Larson v. Jesson,
847 N.W.2d 531, 534 (Minn. App. 2014) (quoting Jarvis v. Levine, 364 N.W.2d 473, 474
(Minn. App. 1985) (quotation omitted)).
C.
In this case, the judicial appeal panel considered each of the five factors in section
253D.29, subdivision 1(b). With respect to the first factor, the judicial appeal panel found
that Martinelli had made sufficient clinical progress and that his ongoing treatment needs
could be met in CPS. With respect to the second factor, the judicial appeal panel found
that the security measures at CPS are sufficient for purposes of ongoing treatment. With
respect to the third factor, the judicial appeal panel found that Martinelli would continue to
be institutionalized at an in -patient facility in CPS. With respect to the fourth factor, the
judicial appeal panel found that CPS would best meet Martinelli’s treatm ent needs. With
respect to the fifth factor, the judicial appeal panel found that a transfer to CPS could be
accomplished with a reasonable degree of safety for the public. The judicial appeal panel
concluded that Martinelli had proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a transfer
to CPS is appropriate.
7
The commissioner challenges the findings of the judicial appeal panel with respect
to each of the five factors . The commissioner contends that (1) Martinelli’s clinical
progress has been limited, and he has ongoing treatment needs; (2) Martinelli has a history
of absconding, which indicates a need for security; (3) Martinelli continues to need
institutionalization; (4) Martinelli’s ongoing treatment needs are better met in h is current
placement; and (5) Martinelli’s history indicates that a transfer cannot be accomplished
with a reasonable degree of public safety.
As stated above, we review the judicial appeal panel’s findings for clear error. See
Larson, 847 N.W.2d at 534. We do not “weigh the evidence as if trying the matter de
novo.” Jarvis, 364 N.W.2d at 474. If the evidence as a whole supports the judicial appeal
panel’s findings, “it is immaterial that the record might also provide a reasonable basis for
inferences and findings to the contrary. ” Piotter v. Steffen, 490 N.W.2d 915, 919 (Minn.
App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Nov. 17, 1992) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, it is
irrelevant that some of the commissioner’s witnesses provided testimony that is
inconsistent with the judicial appeal panel’s findings or its conclusion.
The judicial appeal panel relied primarily on Alberg’s written report and testimony.
Indeed, the judicial appeal panel expressly referred to him in its findings on four of the five
factors (the first, second, fourth, and fifth factors). Alberg was unusually familiar with
Martinelli’s situation because he was the court-appointed examiner in the initial
commitment proceedings two decades earlier. To be sure, Alberg’s written report and
testimony were different from that of other witnesses, such as Dr. Lind and Schiffer, both
of whom recommend that Martinelli not be transferred to CPS. Nonetheless, the judicial
8
appeal panel was persuaded by Alberg’s written report and testimony. On appellate review,
this court’s task is merely to determine whether the judicial appeal panel’s findings are
supported by any evidence in the record. See id.
Alberg’s written report states that Martinelli “has been making significant progress
in treatment.” Alberg wrote that one of Martinelli’s present treatment needs is to work
toward de-institutionalization and integration into a community, which can be addressed at
CPS. In addition, Schiffer testified that Martinelli can continue to make progress in Phase
II treatment at CPS. Sexe testified about the security measures at CPS, which include
electronic monitoring, video surveillance, and controlled movement with a staff escort.
Alberg clearly expressed his opinion that a transfer to CPS would be tter meet Martinelli’s
needs. Alberg testified to his opinion that a transfer to CPS can be accomplished with a
reasonable degree of public safety. This evidence supports t he findings of the judicial
appeal panel.
Thus, the judicial appeal panel did not err by granting Martinelli’s petition with
respect to his request for a transfer to CPS.
Affirmed.