This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).






In the Matter of:  Ricky Lee McDeid.


Filed June 20, 2000


Kalitowski, Judge


Aitkin County District Court

File No. P499194


Allan R. Poncin, Suite 810 Towle Building, 330 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55401-2226 (for appellant McDeid)


Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Steven J. Lokensgard, Assistant Attorney General, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 900, St. Paul, MN 55101-2127 (for respondent Aitkin County)


            Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Foley, Judge.*

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N


            This appeal is from an order indeterminately committing appellant Ricky McDeid as a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP) and a sexually dangerous person (SDP).  We affirm.


            McDeid pleaded guilty in 1992 to having engaged in sexual penetration at various times with three juvenile males:  (1) M.M., his 15-year-old son (in 1991); (2) J.M., his other son (from 1989 to 1991, when J.M. was 6 to 9 years old); and (3) J.L., his 15-year-old cousin (in 1984 and 1985).  McDeid was sentenced to 78 months in prison.

            McDeid was released from prison in August 1996 on a work release program, but was returned to prison after three months following McDeid’s report that he had visited his sponsor’s home while the sponsor’s children were present.  In February 1997 he was released on supervised release.  A month later, McDeid began a relationship with a woman who had two sons, ages eight and ten.  McDeid’s supervised release was restructured several times and he was ultimately returned to prison.  Before the expiration of his sentence in April 1999, a petition was filed to have McDeid committed as a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP) and a sexually dangerous person (SDP).

            At the commitment hearing, the county presented the testimony of three other victims who had been sexually abused by McDeid.  T.L., a nephew of McDeid’s who is deaf and has cerebral palsy, testified that McDeid abused him in 1977 when he was 12.  J.P., another nephew, testified that McDeid took him to a cabin to fish and abused him in 1984, when he was seven or eight.  D.P., McDeid’s uncle (but two years younger than McDeid), testified McDeid abused him three times within a month in 1965, when D.P. was ten.

            Dr. Douglas Fox, one of the two court-appointed psychologists, testified that in his opinion McDeid satisfied the statutory criteria for commitment as both a sexual psychopathic personality and a sexually dangerous person.  Dr. Fox described McDeid’s course of sexual abuse that was harmful to its victims and expressed his opinion that McDeid had an “utter lack of power to control” his sexual impulses.

            Dr. Rosemary Linderman, the second court-appointed examiner, also concluded that McDeid met the criteria for commitment as a sexual psychopathic personality and a sexually dangerous person.  Dr. Linderman noted that McDeid has an “extremely long period” of deviant sexual conduct, and, although he “said the right things” in the prison treatment program, had failed on supervised release despite knowing the consequences.  Dr. Paul Reitman, the examiner McDeid chose for the 60-day evaluation, concluded that McDeid continued to meet the criteria for commitment as an SDP and SPP.


            In reviewing a mental health commitment, this court accepts the district court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous.  In re Alleged Psychopathic Personality of Joelson, 385 N.W.2d 810, 811 (Minn. 1986).  Whether the facts found by the district court support commitment is a question of law reviewed de novo.  In re Linehan, 518 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Minn. 1994).

            McDeid argues that there is insufficient evidence to show that he lacks “adequate control” over his sexual impulses or is “likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct” in the future.  See Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 18c(a) (1998) (defining SDP, in part, as person who “is likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct”); In re Linehan, 594 N.W.2d 867, 876 (Minn. 1999) (hereafter Linehan IV) (holding that SDP statute requires showing of inability to “adequately control” sexual impulses).  McDeid also contends there is no showing of an “utter lack of power to control” sexual impulses, as required by the SPP definition.  Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 18b (1998).  Clear and convincing evidence is required to support SDP and SPP commitment.  Minn. Stat. §§ 253B.18, subd. 1 (Supp. 1999), 253B.185, subd. 1 (Supp. 1999).

            The expert witnesses all testified, or reported, that McDeid meets the standards for commitment as SDP and SPP.  The record shows that McDeid has a 26-year history of pedophilia, which one expert described as an “extremely long period” of deviant sexual conduct.  When McDeid was released from prison after serving time for several of these offenses, he immediately lapsed into contact with children, in violation of basic principles of relapse prevention, first on work release and then on supervised release.  The experts testified he had little insight into his behavior, demonstrated an inability to control his behavior, and was highly likely to reoffend.  Even the expert McDeid chose for the 60-day evaluation reached the same conclusions.

            McDeid argues that, given his completion of chemical dependency treatment and sex offender treatment in prison and his living in the community for nearly two years without reoffending, there was insufficient evidence that he is “highly likely” to reoffend.  McDeid acknowledges the expert opinion arrayed against him but argues that actual recent behavior is more important than “informed speculation” of experts based on old behavior.  We disagree.

            McDeid’s success in the prison treatment program was negated by his failure in the CORE treatment program while on supervised release.  The experts testified that while living in the community, McDeid was so closely monitored that his ability to reoffend was very limited.  Even with this close monitoring, and warnings about engaging in a relationship that gave him access to young boys, McDeid was unable to end the relationship, despite the fact he knew it could have severe consequences.  Thus, the evidence supports the conclusion that McDeid’s behavior while on release was not that of a person who had acquired control over his sexual impulses or no longer posed a risk to public safety.  The district court properly found there was clear and convincing evidence to support both SDP and SPP commitment.

            McDeid raises a number of constitutional challenges to the SDP and SPP statutes.  He acknowledges, however, that there is contrary, controlling Minnesota caselaw.  See, e.g., Linehan IV, 594 N.W.2d at 874-76 (addressing constitutional challenges to SDP statute); Joelson v. O’Keefe, 594 N.W.2d 905, 910-912 (Minn. App. 1999) (rejecting procedural due process and double jeopardy challenges to SPP statute), review denied (Minn. July 28, 1999).  He presents no argument or contrary authority on these issues, which therefore will not be addressed.  See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 770, 772 (Minn. App. 1997).



*  Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.