United States v. Gordon Franklin, Jr., No. 20-3202 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Gruender, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil commitment - 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4246. The evidence at the hearing to revoke defendant's conditional release supported the district court's decision that defendant had failed to comply with his prescribed regimen of psychiatric care and that his continued release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person, or serious damage to property; a risk assessment was unnecessary for the court to make its determination.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-3202 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellee v. Gordon Franklin, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: September 24, 2021 Filed: November 4, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Gordon Franklin, civilly committed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246 since 1991, appeals the district court’s1 order revoking his most recent grant of conditional 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. release. We conclude that the evidence developed during the revocation proceedings supports the district court’s findings that Franklin failed to comply with his prescribed regimen of psychiatric care, and that his continued release would therefore create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person, or serious damage to the property of another. See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(f); Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Appellant, 665 F.3d 620, 622-23 (5th Cir. 2011) (applying preponderance-of-evidence standard to § 4246(f) revocation). We also conclude that an updated risk assessment report was unnecessary for the district court to make its determination. See United States v. Spann, 984 F.3d 711, 714-15 (8th Cir. 2021) (stating that an updated risk assessment report was unnecessary for district court to determine that an individual presented a risk of harm to others and revoke the individual’s release). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
