This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Clark A. Kruger, petitioner,
Commissioner of Human Service,
Filed March 14, 2006
Toussaint, Chief Judge
Nicollet County District Court
File No. 52-CV-05-464
L. Kraker, David L. Kraker & Associates,
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Barbara B. Windels, Assistant Attorney General, 900 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and
Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge; Randall, Judge; and Peterson, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
This is an appeal by Clark A. Kruger from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he challenged his 1977 indeterminate commitment as a psychopathic personality. We affirm.
D E C I S I O N
Appellant asserts that he suffers from terminal cancer and will most likely survive no longer than two to three years. Consequently, he argues that his indeterminate commitment as a psychopathic personality violates both due process and the prohibition against double jeopardy because he will not live long enough to complete the treatment program and because his confinement will then be only for preventive detention. He seeks relief from confinement through habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition on the merits.
facts are undisputed, “[a]n appellate court will review a habeas corpus
decision de novo.” Joelson v. O’Keefe, 594 N.W.2d 905, 908 (
persons may challenge the legality of their commitment through habeas
seeking a discharge from confinement. The
legislature has set out a statutory procedure for those seeking discharge from
a psychopathic personality commitment.
commissioner denies relief, the person may then petition for rehearing and
reconsideration before a special three-judge district court panel appointed by
the supreme court.
Appellant has in fact availed himself of this process. The special review board considered his petition and, after a lengthy memorandum, recommended that the petition to discharge him be denied. The Commissioner of Human Services, based on these findings and recommendations, denied the petition accordingly. Appellant petitioned for rehearing and reconsideration of the matter by a judicial appeal panel. That petition is currently pending.
The district court denied the petition on the merits. But because appellant has brought the same claims through the special review board and judicial appeal panel process, he cannot seek to obtain the same relief through habeas corpus. Consequently, we affirm the district court’s denial of appellant’s petition, although on different grounds.
 Clark A. Kruger is also known as Clark Albert Bailey.