Johnson v. Bonta

Background

On September 13, 2012, a jury adjudged Lamar Johnson a sexually violent predator under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 6604, and he was civilly committed. On August 30, 2018, after Johnson petitioned for conditional release, the San Mateo County Superior Court found that he would not be dangerous to others while receiving supervision and treatment in the community and ordered conditional release.

Johnson was not released immediately because the community program had difficulty finding an appropriate placement. In June 2021, he argued that the delay violated his due process rights and requested, among other relief, unconditional release. In October 2021, the community program proposed a placement, which the Superior Court approved on December 1, 2021. Johnson was released on March 22, 2022, more than three and a half years after the initial conditional-release order.

The California Court of Appeal denied Johnson’s state petition as moot after the Superior Court approved the placement. It later dismissed his appeal concerning the alternative placements, also finding that the appeal was moot because Johnson had been conditionally released. The appellate court rejected his argument that the delay entitled him to unconditional release and explained that California Welfare and Institutions Code section 6608 provides a process for seeking unconditional release when the government does not support release. The California Supreme Court summarily denied review of both decisions.

Johnson’s Federal Petition

Johnson asked the federal district court to review the alleged due process violation. He argued that the California Court of Appeal should have remedied the delay by ordering his unconditional release. He did not claim that he had been denied a proper hearing concerning the facts supporting conditional rather than unconditional release, and he did not ask for a hearing to determine whether he should be released unconditionally. Instead, he asked the federal court to order unconditional release.

Legal Standard

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a federal court may grant relief from a state-court decision only if the state court’s ruling was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law established by the United States Supreme Court, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. This is a highly deferential standard, meaning that a petitioner must show more than ordinary legal error.

Analysis

The court held that Johnson had not shown that the California courts’ decisions violated this standard. Johnson cited authority stating that a sexually violent predator may not remain continuously confined after being found no longer dangerous to the community. But, the court explained, that authority did not establish that a delay in conditional release must be remedied by removing the conditions of release.

The court noted that it was not clear whether the California Court of Appeal was correct to treat the remedy issue as moot rather than decide it on the merits. Even so, the district court concluded that the appellate court correctly determined, as a matter of California law, that Johnson was not entitled to unconditional release. Section 6608 requires a finding that the person is no longer dangerous to the health and safety of others and is not likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior. The court stated that no such finding had been made and that Johnson had not petitioned for unconditional release under section 6608.

Disposition

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was DENIED. The court did not issue a certificate of appealability, finding that reasonable jurists would not debate its assessment of Johnson’s constitutional claims. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the respondent and close the file.