Opinion ID: 6110099
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Due Process Right to Counsel in SVP Proceedings

Text: This Court has repeatedly reaffirmed civil commitment in SVP proceedings impinges on the SVP's fundamental liberty interest and so is protected by due process. In re Care and Treatment of Norton, 123 S.W.3d 170 , 173 (Mo. banc 2003) , first held civil commitment of persons so classified [as sexually violent predators] impinges on the fundamental right of liberty. Norton explained this interest is probably the foundation for the legislature's grant of a statutory right to counsel to SVPs in sections 632.489 and 632.492, 5 stating Missouri's General Assembly evidently conferred additional rights on suspected predators in its civil commitment statutes because even in civil proceedings for involuntary commitment, the person whose commitment is sought has a 'liberty [interest] protected by the Due Process Clause from arbitrary governmental action.'  Id. at n.10 (internal citations and quotations omitted) (brackets in original). This Court has twice reaffirmed Norton . Bernat v. State, 194 S.W.3d 863 , 868 (Mo. banc 2006) , explicitly held:  Norton held, and the Court here reaffirms, that SVPs are not members of a suspect class, but 'civil commitment of persons so classified impinges on the fundamental right of liberty,' that is, physical restraint by confinement to a treatment facility. In re Care and Treatment of Coffman, 225 S.W.3d 439 , 445 (Mo. banc 2007), similarly reaffirmed physical commitment as an SVP impinges on the SVP's liberty interest. This Court again reaffirms civil commitment of SVPs impinges on a fundamental liberty interest and because this fundamental liberty interest is at stake, an SVP's due process right to the assistance of counsel vest[s] at the time the Attorney General file[s] a petition with the probate division. Norton, 123 S.W.3d at 172 .