MINNESOTA LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION NEEDED
My Supervised Release Term was Stolen - Plus 19 Years of Life After my Sentence Expired.
Ambiguous law (Ref. 1) violated double jeopardy, ex post facto, and other constitutional issues.
The Commissioner of Corrections received me (CK) for care, custody, and rehabilitation (Minn. Stat. § 241.01, Subd. 3a.) on March 18th, 1998, with an executed sentence of 122 months, for the crime of assault in the first degree (Minn. Stat. § 609.221 (1996)).
The Commissioners Program Review Team (PRT) only mandated (1998) that I do chemical dependency treatment for rehabilitative programs (Minn. Stat. § 244.03).
I successfully completed a 6 month CD program and successfully completed a Relapse Prevention program, which satisfied the rehabilitative mandates I was issued.
I additionally did 6 more months of voluntary CD treatment; 6 months of Aftercare; completed a Parenting course; completed the Taking Responsibility for Attitude & Change (TRAC) program; completed a Critical Thinking Skills course; completed Anger Management twice, and completed computer courses. I earned a total of ten certificates of completions (excelled).
I completed my rehabilitative mandates and therefore earned all of my supervised release liberty, as far as rehabilitative compliance goes (my executed sentence expired Nov. 30th, 2007).
I was released from prison on June 30th, 2005, to the RS Eden Halfway house in St. Paul and they terminated my stay 12 days later because I wouldn't job search while feeling ill.
I ended up getting a 90 day prison return (Guidelines called for a 120 day return, but ISR Agent Mark Mehl stuck up for me and got me a lower departure because it was bogus technicality).
During bogus prison return, the Commissioner of Corrections claimed jurisdiction over me as a predatory offender with ambiguous law: "Before the commissioner releases from prison any inmate convicted under section ... 609.344" because I have a 1986 3rd Degree CSC under section
609.344 (a very old and expired 32 month sentence). Ambiguously law violated liberty interests.
I have never been a subject of sex offender registration (Ref. 2) and the Commissioner of Corrections didn't even have authority in 1986 to discipline and take away good time from me then for refusing treatment (See Rud v. Fabian, 743 N.W.2d 295, 2007 Minn. App. LEXIS 170), and yet 19 years after my 1986 conviction, the Commissioner forwards my case to District Attorney James C. Backstrom (October 25th, 2005) for civil commitment review for sex offender treatment (ref. 3) at MSOP with my 19-8-6conviction as--:juri-sclietien, -after I completed my DOC 1998 rehabilitative mandates.
I fulfilled term of imprisonment obligations and was entitled to my supervised release term. (Ref. 4)
I think the legislative intent of "Before the commissioner releases from prison any inmate convicted under section ..." means current sexual convictions, for care, custody, and rehabilitation.
Everything about the Petition/commitment, was as unconstitutional as this referral process. Judge called commitment: "another avenue of punishment when [I've] done [my] time".
By Christopher Krych: October 2nd, 2026
1111 Highway 73, Moose Lake, MN. 55767, Voice: 218-351-1900, ext. 24624
Foornotes/ References:
1. Minn. Stat. § 244.05, Supervised Release Term, Subd. 7. Sex offenders; civil commitment determination.
(a) Before the commissioner releases from prison any inmate convicted under section ... 609.344, ..., and determined by the commissioner to be in a high risk category, the commissioner shall_make a preliminary determination whether, in the commissioners opinion, a petition under section 253B.185 may be appropriate. The commissioners opinion must be based on a recommendation of a Department of Corrections screening committee and a legal review and recommendation from independent counsel knowledgeable in the legal requirements of the civil commitment process. The commissioner may retain a retired judge or other attorney to serve as independent counsel.
2. Minn. Stat. § 244.052, Predatory Offenders; Notice, Subd. 1. Definitions. (5) predatory offender and offender mean a person who is required to register as a predatory offender under section 243.166.
3. See Minnesota Supreme Court, Justice, Page, Concurring on Reverse and remand, In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of Cedrick Scott Ince (847 N.W.2d 13; 2014 Minn. LEXIS 197): "Substantive due process forecloses the substitution of preventive detention schemes for the criminal justice system ... The State cannot civilly commit "those whom [we] fear[]," Linehan III, 557 N.W.2d at 184, nor can "mere dangerousness ... justify civil commitment," In re Linehan (Linehan JV), 594 N.W.2d 867, 872 (Minn. 1999). Instead, commitment "is remedial ... for treatment purposes and ... not for purposes of preventive detention." Call v. Gomez, 535 N.W.2d 312, 320 (Minn. 1995)."
4. Minn. Stat. § 244.05, Supervised Release Term, Subd. 1b. (a) ... every inmate sentenced to prison for a felony offense committed on or after August 1, 1993, shall serve a supervised release term upon completion of the inmates term of imprisonment and any disciplinary confinement period imposed by the commissioner due to the inmates violation of any disciplinary rule adopted by the commissioner or refusal to participate in a rehabilitative program required under section 244.03.
