Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Care and Treatment of Bradley

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, Second Division

May 9, 2018

IN THE MATTER OF THE CARE AND TREATMENT OF LESTER BRADLEY a/k/a LESTER B. BRADLEY, a/k/a LESTER BERNARD BRADLEY, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent.

          APPEAL FROM The Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri The Honorable Mark A. Styles, Jr., Judge

          Chelseá R. Mitchell, Assistant Public Defender, Columbia, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

          Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, and Christine Lesicko, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

          Before Judges: Karen King Mitchell, Presiding Judge, and Alok Ahuja and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judges

          OPINION

          KAREN KING MITCHELL, PRESIDING JUDGE

         Lester Bradley appeals, following a jury trial, a judgment finding him to be a sexually violent predator and committing him to the Department of Mental Health for control, care, and treatment. Bradley raises eight points on appeal. The first two points challenge the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss based upon the court's failure to hold a probable cause hearing within 72 hours of Bradley's detention, as required by § 632.489. Bradley's third and fourth points challenge the admission of testimony from the State's expert witness Dr. Kimberly Weitl. His fifth point challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's determination that Bradley is a sexually violent predator. And his final three points raise constitutional challenges to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA).

         AFFIRMED.

         Division Two holds:

1. Constitutional challenges that have been addressed and rejected by the Missouri Supreme Court do not involve fair doubt or reasonable room for disagreement and are merely colorable; thus, the court of appeals retains jurisdiction over the appeal.
2. The SVPA does not violate either due process or equal protection by failing to provide the least restrictive environment.
3. The SVPA is civil in nature and not punitive; therefore, it does not violate the guarantees against either double jeopardy or ex post facto laws.
4. The SVPA does not violate either due process or equal protection so long as the jury is instructed that "mental abnormality" means a congenital or acquired condition affecting the emotional or volitional capacity that predisposes the person to commit sexually violent offenses in a degree that causes the individual serious difficulty in controlling his behavior.
5. The decision of a court is the law of the case for all points presented and decided, as well as for matters that arose prior to the first adjudication and might have been raised but were not.
6. Authority concerns a court's power to render a particular judgment or take a particular action in a particular case based on the existing law, while jurisdiction concerns a court's power to render any ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.