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.

In re Walker

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Second District

September 26, 2014

In re COMMITMENT OF FRANKIE N. WALKER, SR. (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
Frankie N. Walker, Sr., Respondent-Appellant)

Page 206

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 207

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 208

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County. No. 07-MR-152. Honorable Victoria A. Rossetti, Judge, Presiding.

SYLLABUS

Respondent's commitment to a secure facility as a sexually dangerous person was upheld, since there was no basis for respondent's contention that Apprendi should be extended to civil matters such as his commitment proceedings, his facial challenge to the constitutionality of section 40 of the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act on various grounds was rejected, the requirement that respondent be a " sexually violent person" was previously established and did not have to be revisited in the dispositional proceedings, respondent's contention that the trial court erred in allowing his stipulation to his condition was unpersuasive, and the appellate court rejected respondent's contention that a Frye hearing should have been conducted on the diagnosis of respondent's condition made by one of the State's physicians.

For Appellant: Eric F. Rinehart, Malia & Rinehart, Waukegan, IL.

For the People: Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Chicago (Carolyn E. Shapiro, Solicitor General, and Michael M. Glick and Katherine M. Doersch, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel).

JUSTICE HUDSON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Schostok and Spence concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

HUDSON, JUSTICE.

Page 209

[¶1] Respondent, Frankie N. Walker, Sr., was adjudicated a sexually violent person (SVP) and committed to confinement in a secure facility. He now appeals, raising a number of issues regarding the authority of the trial court and the conduct of the proceedings below. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

[¶2] I. BACKGROUND

[¶3] In February 2007, the State filed a petition seeking respondent's commitment in accordance with the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (Act or SVPA) (725 ILCS 207/1 et seq. (West 2006)). The petition alleged that defendant had pleaded guilty to the offense of attempted predatory criminal sexual assault of a child. It also alleged that respondent had been diagnosed by Dr. Ray Quackenbush with paraphilia, not otherwise specified (NOS), nonconsent, which it described as " a congenital or acquired condition affecting [respondent's] emotional or volitional capacity, which predisposes [respondent] to commit acts of sexual violence." It continued, " Respondent is dangerous because this mental disorder makes it substantially probable that he will engage in acts of sexual violence." Quackenbush's report was attached to the petition. Following a hearing, the trial court found that there was probable cause to believe that respondent is a sexually violent person within the meaning of section 5(f) of the Act (725 ILCS 207/5(f) (West 2006) ( " 'Sexually violent person' means a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense, has been adjudicated delinquent for a sexually violent offense, or has been found not guilty of a sexually violent offense by reason of insanity and who is dangerous because he or she suffers from a mental disorder that makes it substantially probable that the person will engage in acts of sexual violence." )). In April 2007, pursuant to respondent's request, the trial court appointed Dr. Ronald Baron as respondent's expert. Respondent was also examined by Dr. Raymond Wood on behalf of the State.

[¶4] On July 8, 2008, the parties entered into a stipulation. Before accepting the stipulation, the trial court addressed respondent:

" THE COURT: Before we go forward with [the stipulation], Mr. Walker, have you gone over all of this with [your attorney]?
[RESPONDENT]: Yes.

Page 210

THE COURT: Do you have any other questions or issues you need to go over with him?
[RESPONDENT]: No.
THE COURT: Do you understand that you do have the right to a jury trial. Your trial could be either in front of a Judge or in front of a jury. You understand that?
[RESPONDENT]: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you have any other questions about that that you need to go over with [your attorney]?
[RESPONDENT]: About the trial? No, ma'am.
THE COURT: You understand that at the trial the State would bring in their witnesses who would testify. You understand that?
[RESPONDENT]: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: [Your attorney] would have the ability to cross-examine or question them. You understand that?
[RESPONDENT]: Yes.
THE COURT: You could bring in witnesses.
[RESPONDENT]: Okay.
THE COURT: You could testify if you wanted to. Do you understand that?
[RESPONDENT]: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: After going over this with [your attorney] again this is what you choose to do?
[RESPONDENT]: I do.
THE COURT: Has anybody forced you or threatened you to get you to do this?
[RESPONDENT]: No, ma'am.
THE COURT: Have you been promised anything?
[RESPONDENT]: No."

The State then went over what Quackenbush and Wood would testify to. The trial court again addressed respondent:

" THE COURT: Mr. Walker, you have gone over that stipulation with [your attorney]?
[RESPONDENT]: Yes.
THE COURT: You understand what was presented this morning?
[RESPONDENT]: Yes, I do.

After the stipulation was presented, the trial court stated, " [B]ased on the stipulation the Court will find that you are a sexually violent person."

[¶5] The stipulation provided:

(1) " that [t]his Stipulation and Agreement is entered into by the Respondent freely and voluntarily and after consulting with his attorney,"
(2) " that the Respondent has read and understands the allegations and request for relief contained in the Petition for Sexually Violent Person Commitment filed herein,"
(3) " that Respondent understands that he has the right to deny the Petition or to admit to the Petition,"
(4) " that Respondent waives the right to have a mental health professional present evidence at trial,"
(5) " that Respondent waives his right to a trial by a jury or by a judge,"
(6) " that Respondent waives his right to present evidence at trial,"
(7) " that the Respondent waives his right to have the People prove that he is a sexually violent person beyond a reasonable doubt,"
(8) " that Respondent has been adjudicated delinquent of the sexually violent offense of Attempt Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault of a Child in Lake County, Illinois, in ...

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.