In the Matter of M.R., Alleged to be Seriously Mentally Impaired ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-0246
Filed September 12, 2018
IN THE MATTER OF M.R.,
Alleged to be Seriously Mentally Impaired,
M.R.,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Kevin McKeever,
Judge.
A prison inmate appeals a district court ruling finding he remains seriously
mentally impaired. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Cami N. Eslick of Eslick Law, Indianola, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Gretchen Witte Kraemer, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.
2
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
M.R. appeals an order of the district court finding he remains seriously
mentally impaired. M.R. argues the State failed to prove he lacked sufficient
judgment to make reasonable decisions about his treatment, and there was not
substantial evidence of dangerousness because there was no evidence of a recent
overt act, attempt, or threat. Because M.R.’s appeal was not timely filed, we lack
jurisdiction and dismiss his appeal.
A judicial hospitalization referee initially found M.R. to be seriously mentally
impaired in March 2017. In November 2017, M.R. requested a placement hearing.
The referee found M.R. still met the definition of a seriously mentally impaired
person. M.R. appealed the referee’s finding to the district court. On January 9,
2018, the district court affirmed the finding M.R. was seriously mentally impaired.
M.R. filed notice of appeal on February 9, 2018. Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure
6.101 provides that notices of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the filing of
the final order or judgment. Timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional. Jensen v.
State, 312 N.W.2d 581, 582 (Iowa 981).
Before this case was transferred to our court, the supreme court raised on
its own motion the issue of jurisdiction after it appeared notice of appeal might be
untimely. See Root v. Toney, 841 N.W.2d 83, 87 (Iowa 2013) (noting court is to
address jurisdictional issue of timeliness of appeal before reaching merits even if
parties do not raise the issue). The appellant was ordered to file a statement
concerning whether this court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the State
was permitted to file a response. Appellant’s counsel states that she “had
neglected to take into account that there are 31 days in January” and argues we
3
should excuse her neglect in filing the appeal one day late and consider the appeal
on its merits. The State argues we do not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal.
We have sometimes granted a delayed appeal under certain extraordinary
circumstances. See Swanson v. State, 406 N.W.2d 792, 792–93 (Iowa 1987)
(recognizing the authority to grant a delayed appeal “where it appears that state
action or other circumstances beyond the appellant’s control have frustrated an
intention to appeal” because “[u]nder such circumstances, the denial of a right to
appeal would violate the due process or equal protection clause of the fourteenth
amendment to the federal constitution”); see also id. at 792 n.1 (noting “[t]he same
federal constitutional considerations which have forced us to recognize delayed
appeals in criminal cases are potentially applicable in some civil settings”). We
have also said the fact that a person found seriously mentally impaired has more
than one opportunity to contest continued commitment in the future does not
diminish the person’s substantial liberty interests. In re M.E., No. 16–1479, 2017
WL 1278321, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2017). An individual has the right to be
released from continued commitment as soon as it is determined the individual is
no longer seriously mentally impaired. See B.A.A. v. Chief Med. Officer, Univ. of
Iowa Hosps. & Clinics, 421 N.W.2d 118, 124 (Iowa 1988).
We have granted delayed appeals in civil commitment cases in which the
appeal was first heard in the wrong court. See In re L.H., 890 N.W.2d 333, 339
(Iowa Ct. App. 2016); see also M.E., 2017 WL 1279321, at *2-3. In both of those
cases, the appeals would have been timely had they been filed in the correct court.
In neither case did the district court recognize it lacked jurisdiction.
4
Here, it was within the appellant’s control to appeal in a timely fashion.
Counsel’s mistake is not an extraordinary circumstance like those for which we
have previously granted delayed appeals. Still, we might have considered leniency
but for the leniency already afforded the appellant in his appeal from the
hospitalization referee.1 Because the appeal was not timely filed, we lack
jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
1
In attempting to appeal from the hospitalization referee, the district court observed the
respondent submitted a written notice of appeal on November 17, 2017, with no signature,
no proof of service, and not filed by counsel of record. In its order filed November 22,
2017, the district court concluded no action should be taken. Subsequently on December
5, 2017, the respondent’s counsel filed a motion to accept notice of appeal as timely. At
this juncture, twenty days had lapsed since entry of the hospitalization referee’s order
although such appeals must filed within ten days after the order is filed. Iowa Code section
229.21(3)(d) (2017). Notwithstanding, the district court allowed the appeal to proceed.