Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

12/26/95 PEOPLE STATE ILLINOIS v. ROBERT LEE SAVAGE

December 26, 1995

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT LEE SAVAGE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from Circuit Court of Adams County. Nos. 93CF226, 93CF321. Honorable Dennis K. Cashman, Judge Presiding.

Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied April 3, 1996. As Corrected July 30, 1996.

Honorable Robert J. Steigmann, J., Honorable James A. Knecht, J., Concurring, Honorable John T. McCULLOUGH, J., Dissenting

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Steigmann

The Honorable Justice STEIGMANN delivered the opinion of the court:

In December 1993, the trial court found defendant, Robert Lee Savage, to be a sexually dangerous person, as defined in section 1.01 of the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (Act) (725 ILCS 205/1.01 (West 1992)) and committed him to the Illinois Department of Corrections (Department). In August 1994, defendant filed an application showing recovery (the application) under section 9 of the Act (725 ILCS 205/9 (West 1992)) and also asked the court to appoint counsel and a psychiatrist not employed by the Department to conduct an independent psychiatric examination of him. The court granted defendant's request for counsel but did not grant his motion for an independent psychiatric examination. Subsequently, the Department psychologist examined defendant and submitted a report to the court.

In December 1994, the State moved for summary judgment on the application, which the trial court granted in January 1995. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred (1) by not granting his request for an independent psychiatric evaluation; and (2) by granting the State's motion for summary judgment.

We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In August 1994, defendant filed a package of form motions with the trial court, consisting of the following: (1) the application; (2) a motion for independent psychiatric examination; (3) a motion for appointment of counsel; (4) a motion for speedy trial; (5) a motion for leave to file in forma pauperis; (6) an affidavit in support of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis; and (7) a motion for a jury trial. By "form motions," we mean that each of these pleadings was preprinted, requiring only that defendant insert his name and, where applicable, appropriate dates.

The application, in pertinent part, stated the following:

"a. The [defendant] has complied with the rules and regulations of confinement.

b. The [defendant] has displayed a willing and respectful attitude of cooperation in submitting to therapy.

c. The [defendant] has corrected and learned to control his unwanted desires that led to his commitment.

d. That [defendant] is fully capable of resuming his position in society."

The trial court appointed counsel for defendant and, in compliance with section 9 of the Act, directed the circuit clerk to send a copy of the application to the Department. Section 9 requires the Department's director to assure that a "socio-psychiatric report" concerning defendant is prepared and sent to the court. Subsequently, Department personnel prepared a report, and the court considered it and granted the State's motion for summary judgment. The court did not conduct a formal hearing on defendant's request for an independent psychiatric evaluation, but instead merely discussed that request with ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.