Opinion ID: 2631220
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Avoiding Additional Incarceration

Text: Finally, the petitioners claim they are being held beyond their minimum release date because of their designations as sex offenders. Sundstrom and Erickson both claim their respective classifications as Level III sex offenders preclude their release into community custody, so they are being imprisoned beyond their release date. The State contends the petitioners' release plans have been denied because the proposed address would violate the terms of the sentence or would place the Petitioner[s] in close proximity to potential victims. Resp't's Supplemental Br. at 19. Meyer apparently agrees. According to his reply brief, Meyer is being held past his early release date because the proposed residences submitted by him have not been accepted by the Department of Corrections. Reply Br. at 1. Yet, Meyer does not argue the process by which the Department evaluates proposed early-release residences violates his right to procedural due process. Thus, Meyer's claim is without merit. Sundstrom, Erickson, and the State have submitted affidavits in support of their respective positions. Sundstrom's mother has apparently contacted several possible release facilities, all of whom refused to accept Sundstrom because he is a Level III sex offender. Decl. of Becky Sundstrom, App. 9 to Petr'r Sundstrom's Mot. for Discretionary Review. Erickson, too, has faced some difficulty in finding a release address because of his classification as a Level III sex offender. At least one possible release facility has a policy to only admit sex offenders who have been given a level one rating. Pet'r's Second Mot. to Supplement the R. None of the Petitioners submitted any affidavits establishing a Level III classification prevents a housing provider from voluntarily agreeing to accept them. They also did not cite any authority to the effect the decisions of private housing providers constitutes sufficient state action establishing a deprivation of to due process. The State, however, submitted affidavits executed by several Community Corrections Officers (CCO) who claim the petitioners' community placement plans were denied because they were contrary to the judgment and sentence of each respective petitioner. For example, Erickson's judgment and sentence specifically prohibits contact with minors. Consequently, Erickson's CCO avers that [a]lthough, Mr. Erickson is a Level III offender, my decision to deny this plan was not based on his risk level classification. Aff. of Skip Butler, Resp't's Mot. to Supplement the R. In the final analysis, no petitioner has established his incarceration has been prolonged because of his classification. Thus, the asserted liberty interest has not been established on this record.