In re the Detention of Galen Kendrick Shaffer

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 18-0390 Filed January 23, 2019 IN RE THE DETENTION OF GALEN KENDRICK SHAFFER, GALEN KENDRICK SHAFFER, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Kellyann M. Lekar, Judge. Respondent appeals the district court’s order for continuing commitment. AFFIRMED. Thomas J. Gaul, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ. 2 VOGEL, Chief Judge. Respondent Galen Shaffer appeals the district court’s order of continuing civil commitment under Iowa Code chapter 299A (2017). On our review for corrections of errors at law, see In re Detention of Altman, 723 N.W.2d 181, 184 (Iowa 2006), we affirm. Shaffer has a long history of sexually violent offenses dating back to 1991. The district court, after a detailed recitation of Shaffer’s numerous previous orders of confinement, found the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt “that the respondent’s mental abnormality remains such that he is likely to engage in predatory acts that constitute sexually violent offenses if discharged and/or that the respondent is not suitable for placement in a transitional release program pursuant to [Iowa Code] section 229A.8A.” On appeal, Shaffer asserts the district court “ignores the facts presented.” However, the district court took the reports from both Shaffer’s expert and the State’s expert into consideration, discussing the findings of each. The district court determined the State’s expert’s report was “more credible and reliable than [Shaffer’s expert]” and “more consistent with other credible evidence.” We agree and affirm without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R.21.26(1)(b), (d), (e). AFFIRMED.

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.