Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Bobby HAMMOND Defendant - Appellant
[Unpublished]
Bobby Joseph Hammond appeals the district court's 1 order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization under 18 U.S.C. § 4246. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
After a hearing, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Hammond was suffering from a mental disease or defect such that his release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another. See 18 U.S.C. § 4246. This court concludes the decision was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Williams, 299 F.3d 673, 676-78 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review).
The commitment order is supported by medical opinions set forth in reports prepared by mental health professionals where Hammond is presently confined for treatment, and by defense counsel's independent psychological examiner. The reports noted that Hammond lacks insight into his mental condition, has difficulty controlling the symptoms of his mental illness within a monitored environment, and indicated he likely would not continue treatment if released. They concluded that there is a nexus between Hammond's mental illness and his destructive and aggressive behaviors, and that he meets the criteria for section 4246 commitment. See United States v. Ecker, 30 F.3d 966, 970 (8th Cir. 1994) (factors determining potential dangerousness).
This court notes that the Attorney General is under a continuing obligation to exert reasonable efforts to place Hammond in a suitable state facility, and that Hammond's custodians must prepare annual reports concerning his mental condition and the need for continued commitment. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 4246(d) and 4247(e)(1)(B).
The judgment is affirmed. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-2409
Decided: March 13, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)