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 Detention of King

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Second Division

September 13, 2016

In re DETENTION OF JONATHAN KING The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, Jonathan King, Respondent- Appellant.

         Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Nos. 11-CR-800002, HCC-14-000201; the Hon. Thomas J. Byrne, Judge, presiding.

         Affirmed.

          J. Nicholas Albukerk, of Albukerk & Associates, of Chicago, for appellant.

          Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael M. Glick and Daniel Lewin, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for the People.

          PRESIDING JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Pierce and Simon concurred in the judgment and opinion.

          OPINION

          HYMAN PRESIDING JUSTICE

         ¶ 1 In 2011, while in prison on two counts of predatory sexual assault of a child, Jonathan King stipulated he was a sexually violent person under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (Act) (725 ILCS 207/1 et seq. (West 2014)). The trial court ordered King committed to the Illinois Department of Human Services (Department) for institutional care in a secure facility. In 2014, King filed petition for a writ of habeas corpus arguing he should be immediately released from Department custody after the State failed to timely file his annual reexamination report as required by the Act. (The reexamination had been completed but was not filed with the court.) The trial court struck the habeas corpus petition, finding the State's delay in filing the annual report did not constitute a valid ground for King's release.

         ¶ 2 While the habeas corpus petition was pending, the State filed the reexamination report along with a motion for a probable cause finding that King was still a sexually violent person. King filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied. King filed a notice of appeal. A few months later, the trial court granted the State's motion for a probable cause finding, from which King did not file a notice of appeal.

         ¶ 3 King now argues (1) the trial court erred in striking his petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the State's failure to timely file a reexamination report required his immediate release and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss. The State counters that this court does not have jurisdiction to address King's motion to dismiss since the order was not a final and appealable order and that the trial court properly struck King's habeas corpus petition as the delay in filing the reexamination report could not be a ground for his immediate dismissal from custody. We agree with the State on both issues.

         ¶ 4 BACKGROUND

         ¶ 5 In 2001, Jonathan King was convicted on two counts of predatory sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 12 years in prison. On August 2, 2011, he stipulated to the State's allegations that he was a sexually violent person under the Act. 725 ILCS 207/1 et seq. (West 2014). King was committed to the custody of the Department of Human Services under section 40(a) of the Act, which provides that a sexually violent person shall "be committed to the custody of the Department for control, care and treatment until such time as the person is no longer a sexually violent person." 725 ILCS 207/40(a) (West 2014).

         ¶ 6 Under section 55 of the Act, after a person has been committed to Department custody, "the Department shall submit a written report to the court on his or her mental condition at least once every 12 months *** for the purpose of determining whether: (1) the person has made sufficient progress in treatment to be conditionally released and (2) the person's condition has so changed since the most recent periodic reexamination (or initial commitment if there has not yet been a periodic reexamination) that he or she is no longer a sexually violent person." 725 ILCS 207/55(a) (West 2014). The examiner "shall prepare a written report of the examination no later than 30 days after the date of the examination" and "shall place a copy of the report in the person's health care records and shall provide a copy of the report to the court that committed the person under Section 40." 725 ILCS 207/55(b) (West 2014).

         ¶ 7 On May 2, 2014, Dr. Richard Travis performed the required annual reexamination and concluded, to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, that King remained a sexually violent person and had not made sufficient progress in treatment to be conditionally released. Although Dr. Travis's reexamination and report were timely completed, the State did not file Dr. Travis's report with the trial court. More than five months later, on October 31, 2014, King filed an emergency petition for writ of habeas corpus. King argued that because Dr. Travis's report was not filed with the court by September 11, 2014, which he asserts is 12 months from the filing of the last reexamination report, the State lost jurisdiction, and he was entitled to immediate release from custody. On December 1, 2014, after argument, the trial court struck King's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court stated that "[t]here's nothing in the statute that says [the State] lose[s] jurisdiction, it's just the requirements of the statute." Thus, the court concluded the State's failure to comply with the one year reporting requirement is "not a habeas matter." On December 9, 2014, King filed a notice of appeal from the December 1 order.

         ¶ 8 Meanwhile, on November 19, 2014, the State filed its motion for a finding of no probable cause in King's sexually violent person case, based on Dr. Travis's reexamination report, which the State also filed. In response, King filed a motion to dismiss, which is not dated. On January 7, 2015, the State filed a response, and on January 28, 2015, the trial court denied ...


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.