Allen Koppy, State’s Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee v. G.L.D., Respondent and Appellant (2020)

[¶1] G.L.D. appealed from a district court order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. G.L.D. argues the district court’s findings of fact are insufficient to support its conclusion that G.L.D. is likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct which constitute a danger to the physical or mental health or safety of others, see N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01(8), and that G.L.D. presently has serious difficulty controlling his behavior, see Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 122 S.Ct. 867, 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002). This Court retained jurisdiction under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3) and remanded to the district court with instructions that the district court make specific findings of fact on whether G.L.D. is likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct and whether G.L.D. presently has serious difficulty controlling his behavior. In re G.L.D., 2019 ND 304, ¶ 8, 936 N.W.2d 539.

[¶2] The district court issued its additional findings on January 9, 2020, and ordered G.L.D. remain civilly committed as a sexually dangerous individual. After reviewing the district court’s additional findings, we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Per Curiam.

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte