Opinion ID: 1403389
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Compliance with Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

Text: For his final point on appeal, Parkman argues that his assessment as a level four offender should be invalidated because his assessment was not supported by substantial evidence, certain statutory requirements were not followed, and the assessment was arbitrary and capricious. The Committee responds that the record clearly reflects that the statutory requirements for assessing a sexually violent predator were satisfied. Before addressing the merits of Parkman's argument, we note that judicial review of the findings by the Committee is governed by the APA. See Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-922(b)(7)(A)(ii). In such cases, the appellate court's review is directed, not toward the circuit court, but toward the decision of the agency, because administrative agencies are better equipped by specialization, insight through experience, and more flexible procedures than courts, to determine and analyze legal issues affecting their agencies. See Collie v. Arkansas State Med. Bd., 370 Ark. 180, 258 S.W.3d 367 (2007). Our review of administrative decisions is limited in scope. See id. When reviewing such decisions, we uphold them if they are supported by substantial evidence and are not arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion. See id. With respect to the Committee's alleged failure to comply with the statutory and regulatory criteria, Parkman points to five specific ways in which he contends the Committee's findings failed to comply with the pertinent criteria: (1) there was no finding of a mental abnormality or personality disorder, which he claims is required under Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-903(15); [11] (2) he was examined by a psychological examiner and not a psychologist or psychiatrist, as he claims is required by Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922(a)(2)(B); (3) there was no finding of compliance, which he claims is required under Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-922(a)(2)(C); (4) there was no indication in the findings that the Committee determined by a majority vote whether Parkman met the criteria for a sexually violent predator; and (5) certain subjective impressions of Parkman's actions and affect, which he claims served to override Parkman from the tests which showed him to be a low or moderate risk offender, were not made in the findings, nor was it clear that they were relied upon by the Committee. None of Parkman's assertions have merit.
In this point on appeal, Parkman initially asserts that Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-903(15) (Sp. Supp. 2003-04) required the Committee to make within its findings a finding that Parkman suffered from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses. [12] Section 12-12-903(15) defines the term sexually violent predator, providing: Sexually violent predator means a person who has been adjudicated guilty or acquitted on the grounds of mental disease or defect of a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses. In construing a statute, it is our duty to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their plain and ordinary meanings. See Arkansas Dep't of Envtl. Quality v. Brighton Corp., 352 Ark. 396, 102 S.W.3d 458 (2003). Here, the statute relied upon by Parkman merely defines the term sexually violent predator. It contains no express language requiring an explicit finding by the Committee, and the Committee's findings were not invalid for failing to include such a finding. For this reason, Parkman's assertion of error is without merit.
Parkman next asserts that the Committee's findings were invalid because his examination was performed by a psychological examiner and not a psychologist or psychiatrist, which he asserts is required by Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-922(a)(2)(B) (Sp. Supp. 2006). Section 12-12-922(a)(2)(B) requires: (B) If a mental abnormality or personality disorder is suspected, a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist qualified by the committee shall conduct further assessment to determine the presence or absence of a mental abnormality or personality disorder. (Emphasis added.) A review of Parkman's assessment records reveals that his Risk Assessment and Offender Profile Report, dated October 30, 2006, was prepared by C.E. Buddy Rawls, M.R.C. While Parkman claims in his brief that Rawls is a psychological examiner, not a psychologist or psychiatrist, the report indicates that it was reviewed, edited, and approved by Dean Whiteside, Ed. D. Moreover, the record reveals that Dr. Whiteside conducted a supplemental interview of Parkman on October 3, 2006, prior to the date of the report, and concluded that Parkman's history is consistent with a rape paraphilia, and designation as Sexually Violent Predator. Parkman's argument fails. The plain language of section 12-12-922(a)(2)(B) requires only that where a mental abnormality or personality disorder is suspected, further assessment by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist shall be conducted. It in no way requires that the entire assessment shall be conducted by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist; indeed, the preceding subsection, section 12-12-922(a)(2)(A) speaks in terms of what precipitates the further examination: (2)(A) Examiners qualified by the Sex Offender Assessment Committee shall include in the assessment of any sex offender convicted of a sex offense a review as to whether the frequency, repetition over time, severity of trauma to the victim, or established pattern of predatory behaviors suggests that the sex offender suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the sex offender likely to engage in future predatory sexual offenses. Because our review of the assessment reveals that it complied with section 12-12-922(a)(2)(B), we find no error.
Parkman next asserts that the Committee's findings lack any finding of compliance with Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-922(a)(2)(C), which provides: (C) The report of the assessment shall be presented to the committee, which shall make the determination of a mental abnormality or personality disorder according to protocols established by the committee and published in the committee guidelines. Here, Parkman's Risk Assessment and Offender Profile Report specifically states that [o]n October 30, 2006 the Sex Offender Assessment Committee reviewed this case file and voted to assess this offender at Level 4 to permit the broadest and most visible means of community notification. Pursuant to the Sex Offender Guidelines and Procedures (Revised Jun. 2004), a risk level of four indicates a sexually violent predator. See Sex Offender Guidelines and Procedures, Overview. These same guidelines provide that Sexually Violent Predator means a person who has been adjudicated guilty, or acquitted on the grounds of mental disease or defect of a sexually violent offense, or is convicted of [a] second or subsequent sexual offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in future predatory sexually violent offenses. See id. Because the Committee determined the presence of a mental abnormality or personality disorder by virtue of its review and assessment of Parkman as a level four offender, it is clear to us that the Committee complied with the provisions of section 12-12-922(a)(2)(C). [13]
Without any citation to the regulation upon which he premises his argument, Parkman next contends that the Committee's findings failed to indicate whether Parkman met the criteria for a sexually violent predator by a majority vote. Not only has Parkman failed to cite this court to the authority on which he relies, it is not otherwise evident from our review of the record that this argument was even raised to the Committee. A review of Parkman's request for administrative review, dated November 21, 2006, and his amended and supplemental request, dated January 8, 2007, reveals no argument regarding the alleged regulation requiring a majority vote. It is essential to judicial review under the APA that issues must be raised before the administrative agency appealed from or they will not be addressed by this court. See City of Benton v. Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Comm'n, 345 Ark. 249, 45 S.W.3d 805 (2001). Because Parkman failed to raise this argument to the Committee, we will not address it.
For his final argument, while somewhat unclear, Parkman appears to challenge the fact that certain impressions, he claims to be improper and subjective, were used in calculating his assessment level. He claims that these impressions were used to assess him at a higher level, rather than as a low or moderaterisk offender. At the same time, Parkman admits that it is unclear whether [these observations] were relied on by the Committee because there is no indication from the Findings that the Committee, as opposed to one member thereof, ever looked at it in the 2007 adjudication. Admittedly, we are somewhat perplexed by Parkman's argument due to its lack of clarity. However, to the extent that Parkman's argument can be taken that he was improperly classified as a level four offender based upon improper subjective impressions of his demeanor, his argument is without merit. Here, the Background Information section of Parkman's Risk Assessment and Offender Profile Report provided that John Parkman is a 52-year-old Caucasian male. He was convicted of Sexual Abuse-1st Degree and Burglary-2 Counts on 5/6/85. Documentation indicates this offender broke into the residence of an adult female stranger, raped her and stole money from her. The second count of Burglary had been first adjudicated on 4/23/85. Apparently this offender changed his plea from not guilty to guilty and this conviction was then adjudicated with his target offense. Other documented criminal convictions include Burglary of Habitation with Intent to Commit Rape (3/31/80). In this offense he broke into a pregnant adult female's residence and raped her. [14] In addition, the Summary of Interview and other Findings section provided as follows, including just one sentence, among the fifteen within the section, regarding Parkman's demeanor during the assessment process: This offender was interviewed on 1/11/06. His interviewer reported that he presented himself as generally forthcoming and revealed some important aspects of his offenses. He initially minimized his offenses and blamed his abuse of alcohol. He smiled and laughed during his interview and appeared to enjoy discussing his attacks. He later changed his story and admitted he broke into many houses to rape women, first admitting he had done this 6 times, then he increased that number to 8 and admitted he had forced girlfriends to have sex as well. He described having had thoughts and fantasies of rape beginning at 30, admitted he committed numerous rapes until he was 40. He claimed these rapes were the result of his rage toward women and desire to punish them. He admitted he has also used alcohol with women to disadvantage them and have sex with them. He showed more concern for the practical consequences of his misconduct to himself as opposed to genuine remorse for the wrongfulness of his behavior or the impact of his abuse on his victims. He described himself as lacking a conscience in the past, yet tried to make the point that this was no longer the case. This offender was charged in two cases with Burglary, Rape and Robbery in 1993 involving his attack of two adult female strangers in their homes. These cases were dismissed on 11/02/95 because this offender was not given a speedy trial. Documentation indicates both victims identified this offender as their attacker. A third female reported she was raped on 10/19/93 and picked this offender from a group of photos. There are no other records on these rapes. (Emphasis added.) The Report then concluded: Factors Justifying the Community's Need to Know: This offender has multiple adult female victims of rape for whom he was charged and convicted and others for whom he was charged but not convicted due to lack of a speedy trial. He admits he has forced women known to him to engage in sex against their will and that he has given other women alcohol to disadvantage them to the point they could not resist his assaults. It is likely he has other, undetected victims of rape. His history of violence, especially toward women, is likely more extensive than his official record reflects. He reports he has completed a sex offender treatment program. He is not engaged in aftercare. On October 30, 2006 the Sex Offender Assessment Committee reviewed this case file and voted to assess this offender at Level 4 to permit the broadest and most visible means of community notification. Community Impact Risk: 4 In its findings of fact and conclusions of law upon administrative review, the Committee specifically found that the documents it received pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-917(c) reflected: a) There are multiple victims. The Petitioner was convicted of Burglary and Sexual Abuse in the First Degree on May 6, 1[9]85 in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas. CR 84-3137. b) The Amended Felony Information in CR 84-3137 indicates that on or about the 18th day of July 1984, the Petitioner did feloniously engage in deviate sexual activity with an adult female by forcible compulsion. c) On July 3, 1980 in Texas, the Petitioner was sentenced to not less than 5 years nor more than 15 for burglary of a habitation with intent to commit rape. d) The official version of the crime resulting in the 5 years nor more than 15 year sentence in Texas indicates that the Petitioner raped a female that was seven months pregnant while holding a pillow over her head. e) The Petitioner in 1995 was the defendant in two criminal cases that were dismissed by Judge John B. Plegge for failure to provide a speedy trial. The case numbers in these cases were CR 93-2782 and CR 93-2942. Both cases were in Seventh Division of Circuit Court in Pulaski County. f) According to the case report for case number 93-2782, the Petitioner on June 10, 1993 forced an adult female to have sex with him after holding a knife to her throat. g) According to the Crime Scene Search Unit Work List, in connection with case number 93-2942, the Petitioner on January 5, 1993 forced an adult female to perform oral sex on him after which he put his penis and finger in her vagina. h) Interview conducted by SOSRA on November 11, 2006, revealed: i) Petitioner admitted to breaking into many houses to rape women. ii) Petitioner admitted he forced girlfriends to have sex with him. iii) Petitioner admitted to having committed numerous rapes by the time he reached the age of 40. iv) Petitioner claimed that the rapes were the result of alcohol abuse and his rage toward women and a desire to punish them. v) Petitioner admitted to using alcohol with women in an effort to take advantage of them. The Committee then upheld Parkman's assessment of level four. First, it should be noted that Parkman has failed to point this court to any authority for the proposition that it was improper for the Committee to consider his demeanor during the assessment process in calculating his assessment level. Nonetheless, it is evident from reviewing the record, as well as Parkman's Risk Assessment and Offender Profile Report, as set forth in pertinent part above, and the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon administrative review, that the Committee in no way based Parkman's classification as a level four offender improperly upon his demeanor. Parkman was convicted of two separate sexual assaults on two separate women, each in her own home. In addition, he had been identified in two other rape cases, with the charges only being dismissed due to the lack of speedy trial. Further, Parkman himself admitted that he had been involved in forced sex acts anywhere from six to eight times; that because he was a plumber, he was able to obtain women's addresses from them after meeting them by discussing plumbing issues; that when he would drink, he thought about raping; that he could not stand rejection and raping made him feel better; and that his motives for rape were power and control, evoking fear, and expressing anger. In addition, Parkman was given a diagnostic impression of Paraphilia NOS (non-consent). With all of this in mind, we cannot say that the Committee improperly assessed Parkman based on any alleged improper subjective impressions, and we hold that substantial evidence existed to support the Committee's assessment of Parkman as a level four offender. Because substantial evidence existed to support the Committee's assessment, it automatically follows that its assessment cannot be classified as unreasonable or arbitrary. See, e.g., Collie v. Arkansas State Med. Bd., 370 Ark. 180, 258 S.W.3d 367 (2007). For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm. IMBER, J., not participating.