United States v. Alvin Hardy, No. 12-1584 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - commitment. District court's findings under 18 U.S.C. sec. 4246 are not clearly erroneous and judgment of commitment is affirmed. [ August 09, 2012
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-1584 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Appellee v. Alvin Hardy lllllllllllllllllllll Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri ____________ Submitted: July 30, 2012 Filed: August 10, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Alvin Hardy appeals the district court s1 order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4246, and we affirm. Section 4246 provides for the indefinite hospitalization of a person, against whom criminal charges were dismissed solely for reasons related to the mental condition of the person, if the person is found--by clear and convincing evidence after a hearing--to be 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(a)-(d). In this case, the district court found that commitment was appropriate because state placement was unavailable and the mental health professionals who examined Hardy unanimously believed that his mental illness and history of noncompliance with medication, with resulting paranoid and threatening behavior, would create a risk of dangerousness within the meaning of section 4246 if Hardy were unconditionally released. We hold that this finding is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Williams, 299 F.3d 673, 676-77 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review). We note that Hardy s custodians are under an ongoing obligation to prepare annual reports concerning his mental condition and the need for his continued hospitalization, see 18 U.S.C. § 4247(e)(1)(B), and to exert reasonable efforts to place him in a suitable state facility, see 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, and counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable James C. England, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
