This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. ß 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A05-2157

 

In the Matter of the

Civil Commitment of:

Timothy Dawkins Coon.

 

Filed March 14, 2006

Affirmed
Klaphake, Judge

 

Anoka County District Court

File No. P6-04-3882

 

Paul C. Clabo, Assistant Anoka County Attorney, Anoka County Government Center, 2100 Third Avenue South, 7th Floor, Anoka, MN† 55303-2265 (for respondent State of Minnesota)

 

Warren J. Maas, 7964 Brooklyn Boulevard, #107, Brooklyn Park, MN55445 (for appellant Timothy Dawkins Coon)

 

††††††††††† Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge, Peterson, Judge, and Hudson, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D†† O P I N I O N

KLAPHAKE, Judge

††††††††††† Appellant Timothy Dawkins Coon was indeterminately committed as both mentally ill and dangerous (MID) and as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) to the Minnesota Sex Offenders Program.† Appellant argues that the district court erred by committing him to the sex offender program, when commitment as MID alone would provide a less restrictive alternative of commitment.† Because the district courtís findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm.

D E C I S I O N

††††††††††† This court reviews the district courtís commitment decision to determine whether the decision complies with the statutory requirements and whether the findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence and are not clearly erroneous.† In re Knops, 536 N.W.2d 616, 620 (Minn. 1995).† On appeal, the reviewing court does not weigh evidence, but determines if the record as a whole provides substantial support for the district courtís conclusions.† In re Linehan, 557 N.W.2d 171, 189 (Minn. 1996), vacated & remanded, 522 U.S. 1011, 118 S. Ct. 596 (1997), affíd, 594 N.W.2d 867 (Minn. 1999).† When a person is found to be either MID or SDP, the district court must commit the person to a secure facility, unless the proposed patient can establish ďby clear and convincing evidence that a less restrictive treatment program is available that is consistent with the patientís treatment needs and the requirements of public safety.Ē† Minn. Stat. ßß 253B.18, subd. 1 (MID); .185, subd. 1 (SDP) (2004).† We review the district courtís decision on least restrictive alternatives for clear error.† See In re Dirks, 530 N.W.2d 207, 211 (Minn. App. 1995).

††††††††††† Appellant concedes that he meets the requirements for commitment as both MID and SDP, but argues that his underlying diagnosis of Aspergerís disorder makes his commitment as MID to the Minnesota Security Hospital (MSH) a less restrictive alternative to commitment as SDP to the sex offender program.† But the experts did not all agree that appellant has Aspergerís disorder; specifically, the MSH staff did not agree with this diagnosis.† Dr. Fabian, the forensic psychologist at MSH, and Dr. Gilbertson, the court-appointed evaluator, agreed that treatment of Aspergerís disorder alone would not be sufficient to treat appellantís sexual disorder or ensure public safety, and that treatment of appellantís sexual disorder was a higher priority than treatment of his Aspergerís disorder.† Dr. Fabian testified that the programs for MID patients at MSH are not intensive enough for the scope of appellantís sexual problems.† Further, MID patients at MSH who present primarily with a sexual disorder are generally treated in the sex offender program.† Appellant has not established by clear and convincing evidence that commitment solely as MID would be an appropriate less restrictive alternative.

††††††††††† Although commitment as MID may give appellant access to different therapies, there is substantial record evidence to support the district courtís decisions designating appellant as MID and SDP, and its decision to commit appellant to the sex offender program.† We therefore affirm.

††††††††††† Affirmed.† ††