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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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 Pi penhagen, 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NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION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 pe rson 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 Minnesot a Court of Appeals, servin g by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
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,
724 (Minn. 2013) (applying Thiele in a commitment appeal). A motion challenging
appellant’s stipulation may properly be brought before the di strict court pursuant to rule
60.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. See In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan,
811 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 i nvalid, 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).

3
Appellant also argues that the record does not support his commitment as
respondent did not prove by clear and convin cing evidence that appellant was dangerous.
Appellant’s stipulation to the commitment ag ain proves insurmountable, as the need to
develop the record was obviated by his stipulation. Id.
Affirmed.