Court Opinion

ID: 9899713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 16:07:12.593771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:47.483446
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                                             No. 125,848

              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

                           In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of
                                      DAVID W. THAYER

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appeal from Pawnee District Court; BRUCE T. GATTERMAN, judge. Submitted without oral
argument. Opinion filed November 17, 2023. Affirmed.

       Kristen B. Patty, of Wichita, for appellant.

       Kurtis K. Wiard, assistant solicitor general, and Kris W. Kobach, attorney general, for appellee.

Before MALONE, P.J., GARDNER and CLINE, JJ.

       PER CURIAM: David W. Thayer appeals the district court's denial of transitional
release from his commitment as a sexually violent predator under the Kansas Sexually
Violent Predator Act (KSVPA), K.S.A. 59-29a01 et seq. Thayer claims the district court
erred in finding that he did not meet his burden to show probable cause that his mental
abnormality or personality disorder had so significantly changed that it would be safe to
place him on conditional release. After reviewing the record, we agree with the district
court that Thayer has not met his burden, and we affirm the district court's judgment.

                                                 FACTS

       In 2001, while Thayer was incarcerated for sodomy with a child over 14 but under
16 years old, the State filed a petition alleging that Thayer was a sexually violent predator
under the KSVPA. A trial was held on June 8, 2003, where a jury found that Thayer was

                                                      1
a sexually violent predator. The district court ordered that Thayer be committed to the
custody of the Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

       Thereafter, annual reports concerning Thayer's progress in treatment were
provided to the district court. Following the 2014 report, Thayer petitioned the district
court for transitional release. The district court denied the petition based on the records
after an annual review hearing, finding that Thayer had failed to show probable cause to
believe that his mental abnormality or personality disorder had so changed that he was
safe for placement in transitional release. This court affirmed the district court's judgment
on appeal. In re Care and Treatment of Thayer, No. 116,444, 2017 WL 2617152, at *7
(Kan. App. 2017) (unpublished opinion).

       On January 10, 2022, the district court received an annual report on Thayer's
progress. The report showed that Thayer was diagnosed with pedophilic disorder, major
depressive disorder, an intellectual developmental disorder, and a personality disorder
with antisocial and dependent features. During the year, Thayer had attended all of his
therapy appointments. Thayer completed two polygraphs with a result of no significant
reaction. Thayer had received no notifications for the year, no daily activity reports for
hostile or deviant behavior, but had received two daily activity reports for verbalizing
frustration with a nurse and for "having something on his light fixture which he
immediately removed." He completed a financial wellness class and an ethics class. The
combined results of the "Static-99R-2003 and Stable-2007" examinations suggested a
risk profile of "'Below Average.'" But the report conceded that these assessments likely
underestimate the degree of recidivism over a subject's lifetime.

       The annual report also described how Thayer's treatment program consisted of
three inpatient tiers and two supervised outpatient treatment tiers. At the time of the
report, Thayer remained in the first of the three inpatient tiers, which focuses on skill
acquisition and encouragement "to address the individual issues which contributed to his

                                              2
placement . . . ." Thayer was progressing through the tier one requirements but had not
yet completed a relapse prevention plan required to be elevated to the second tier of
inpatient treatment. The reported concluded with a recommendation that Thayer's
condition "has not so significantly changed that it would be safe for Mr. Thayer to be
placed in Transitional Release, as it is likely he may engage in repeat acts of sexual
violence if placement was to occur at this time."

       On May 2, 2022, Thayer requested an annual review hearing and the appointment
of an independent examiner. The district court ultimately denied Thayer's request for an
independent evaluation and set the date for the annual review hearing.

       The district court held a review hearing on November 28, 2022. Thayer appeared
with counsel and was allowed to address the court on his status in the treatment program.
Thayer, through his own statement and through counsel, argued that his attendance
record, completion of classes, and his favorable assessment scores created probable cause
to justify an evidentiary hearing on his request for transitional release. The State argued
that while Thayer's progress was commendable, it was merely progress within the first
tier of his treatment program and that his relapse prevention plan would need to be tested
in the program's second tier to determine the actual effectiveness of treatment.

       After hearing the arguments, the district court agreed with the State and denied
Thayer's request for transitional release. The district court commended Thayer on his
progress and encouraged him to continue his treatment. But the district court found that
Thayer's recurrent fantasies, the lack of a relapse prevention plan, and the lack of
treatment and prevention plan testing under the second tier of his program all prohibited a
probable cause finding that Thayer's condition had so significantly changed that it would
be safe to place him in transitional release. The next day, the district court entered a
written journal entry reaffirming its findings from the bench. Thayer timely appealed.

                                              3
                                        ANALYSIS

       Thayer claims the district court erred in finding that he did not meet his burden to
show probable cause that his mental abnormality or personality disorder had so
significantly changed that it would be safe to place him on conditional release. The State
disagrees. We note that Thayer's notice of appeal stated he was appealing from the denial
of transitional release and the denial of an independent evaluation, but Thayer makes no
argument in his brief challenging the denial of his request for an independent evaluation.
An issue not briefed is considered waived or abandoned. In re Adoption of Baby Girl G.,
311 Kan. 798, 803, 466 P.3d 1207 (2020).

       We review de novo the district court's probable cause determination under the
KSVPA. In re Care and Treatment of Burch, 296 Kan. 215, 223, 291 P.3d 78 (2012).
Thayer, as the person seeking transitional release, bears the burden to show probable
cause that he should be placed on transitional release. Thayer's burden is satisfied when
the evidence is "sufficient to cause a person of ordinary prudence and action to
conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief that [Thayer's] mental abnormality or
personality disorder had so changed that he was safe to be placed in transitional release."
296 Kan. at 226. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the committed
person and resolve all conflicting evidence in that person's favor. 296 Kan. at 224.

       After an individual is civilly committed as a sexually violent predator, the person
is entitled to receive an annual review hearing under K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 59-29a08 to
determine whether the individual is ready for transitional release. K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 59-
29a08(a) states: "Each person committed under the Kansas sexually violent predator act
shall have a current examination of the person's mental condition made once every year."
The annual report is forwarded to the district court that committed the person under the
act. K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 59-29a08(b) provides that the "person must file a request for an
annual review hearing within 45 days after the date the court files the annual written

                                             4
notice." At the annual review hearing, "the burden of proof shall be upon the person to
show probable cause to believe the person's mental abnormality or personality disorder
has significantly changed so that the person is safe to be placed in transitional release."
K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 59-29a08(d).

       On appeal, the parties renew the arguments that they made in district court. Thayer
points to his favorable assessment scores, his attendance history, the completion of
polygraphs without a significant reaction, and the completion of a personal finance and
ethics class as evidence supporting probable cause. The State focuses on the evidence that
Thayer had not progressed beyond the first tier of his inpatient treatment program. The
State also points to Thayer's diagnosed conditions and disorders, and that the annual
report confirmed that he still needed to "'work on managing his recurrent sexual
fantasies'" and "complete a relapse prevention plan." Both parties cite exclusively to the
annual report to support their positions.

       We agree with the district court's analysis and conclusion that Thayer has not
shown probable cause. The annual report shows that Thayer made progress on his
treatment plan and that Thayer was engaged in his treatment. We, like the district court,
commend Thayer's progress and encourage him to continue treatment. Even so, and in the
light most favorable to Thayer, the evidence does not support probable cause. While
Thayer made progress on his treatment program, he did not progress beyond the first tier
of inpatient treatment, which focuses on skill acquisition and encouragement to address
the issues that led to his confinement. At the time of the annual report, Thayer had not
completed a relapse prevention plan and had not progressed to the second of three tiers of
inpatient treatment. One of Thayer's short term treatment goals was to work on recurrent
sexual fantasies. The annual report concluded with a recommendation that Thayer still
met the definition of a sexually violent predator and that his mental abnormality or
personality disorder had not significantly changed to warrant transitional release.

                                              5
       In sum, the evidence shows that Thayer participates in treatment to acquire the
skills to prevent recidivism, but he does not have a relapse plan in place to apply those
skills and he has not progressed to a point in his treatment where he can show successful
skill application. Participation in treatment does not, by itself, demonstrate change.
Indeed, "[t]he test for transitional release is not 'potential' change, and it is not enough to
show the committed person has participated in the treatment program." In re Care and
Treatment of Randall Joe Ritchie, No. 124,773, 2022 WL 4391892, at *7 (Kan. App.
2022) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 317 Kan. ___ (2023). Under these facts, a
person of ordinary prudence and action could not conscientiously entertain a reasonable
belief that Thayer's mental abnormality or personality disorder had so changed that he
was safe to be placed in transitional release.

       Affirmed.

                                                 6