Mitchell v. Smith, Minn.Ct.App., 7/30/2012. Mr. Mitchell is in prison for various offenses having to do with criminal sexual conduct, promoting prostitution and failure to register as a predatory offender. One of his convictions, criminal sexual conduct in the third degree with a fifteen year old when he was twenty-nine, resulted in Mr. Mitchell becoming a dad. He challenged a Corrections policy that precluded him from visiting with his minor child while incarcerated.
Let’s start with a rundown of his criminal escapades:
Appellant Alphonso Mitchell pleaded guilty in 2003 to third-degree criminal sexual conduct for engaging in sexual relations with a 15-year-old girl when he was 29 years old. Mitchell’s daughter was born on November 11, 2002, as a result of this sexual relationship. The district court sentenced Mitchell to 36 months’ imprisonment, and Mitchell was placed on supervised release in August 2005.
In March 2006, Mitchell was arrested for failing to register as a sex offender. During police questioning, he admitted that he had recently kissed a 16-year-old girl. Because of his sexual contact with a minor and because he neglected to complete sex-offender treatment, a condition of his release, Mitchell’s supervised release was revoked and he was ordered to serve 150 days in custody.
In August 2006, Mitchell again was placed on supervised release. He subsequently pleaded guilty to charges in two separate criminal complaints. A July 2006 complaint alleged that, between December 2005 and March 2006, Mitchell and his codefendant kidnapped two minor females and held them at a St. Paul residence, where the minors were drugged, physically assaulted, sexually assaulted, and forced to engage in prostitution. The complaint also alleged that Mitchell committed arson. Mitchell was charged with soliciting and promoting prostitution of minors, kidnapping, arson, and first-degree criminal sexual conduct. On March 12, 2007, Mitchell pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting solicitation and promotion of prostitution of a minor, a violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.05, subd. 1, 609.322, subd. 1(1)-(2) (2006), and one count of first-degree arson, a violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.561, subd. 1 (2006). Based on a separate incident, Mitchell also pleaded guilty to solicitation of a minor to practice prostitution, a violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.322, subd. 1(1). The district court imposed multiple concurrent sentences, the longest of which is 192 months’ imprisonment. Mitchell began serving his sentences in May 2007 at the Minnesota Correctional Facility at St. Cloud (MCF-SCL).
The Department of Corrections restricts visiting privileges for offenders who have a “documented abuse history involving minors.” The Department initially restricted Mr. Mitchell’s visits with minors to in-person but no physical contact visits. When Mr. Mitchell appealed this restriction the Department thought better of its first decision and eliminated any visits with minors at all, based on this policy statement:
No minor (under 18) visits will be allowed to an offender . . . who was previously convicted of a sexual offense or one with sexual characteristics involving a minor, and subsequently violated release expectations. These offenders must repeat their participation in Sex Offender Treatment.” Prison officials amended Mitchell’s abuse code to “NV.
Mr. Mitchell sued the Warden, complaining that this policy violated his constitutional right to substantive due process by prohibiting him from exercising his constitutionally protected parental rights. The court of appeals rejects this contention, saying that the Department’s policy is valid because it reasonably is related to a legitimate penological interest, namely “to protect the safety, health and welfare of minor visitors and to rehabilitate sex offender inmates.”
Caveat: I represented Mr. Mitchell on his most recent (March 2007) set of charges.
No comments:
Post a Comment