People v. Stanbridge (In re Stanbridge)

1

2024 IL App (4th) 220686-U

In re COMMITMENT OF KEVIN W. STANBRIDGE, a Sexually Violent Person

The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Kevin W. Stanbridge, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 4-22-0686

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

February 13, 2024

This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Adams County No. 05MR45 Honorable John C. Wooleyhan, Judge Presiding.

STEIGMANN JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Turner and Justice Harris concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

STEIGMANN JUSTICE.

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of respondent's petition for discharge under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act.

¶ 2 In May 2005, the State filed a petition to commit respondent, Kevin W. Stanbridge, to the Illinois Department of Human Services pursuant to the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (Act). 725 ILCS 207/15 (West 2004). In October 2007, a jury found respondent to be a sexually violent person (SVP). Id. § 5(f). Respondent appealed, and in November 2008, this court affirmed the trial court's judgment. In re Detention of Kevin W. Stanbridge No. 4-08-0163 (2008) (unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23).

¶ 3 In September 2017, respondent, while represented by counsel, pro se filed a petition for discharge pursuant to section 65 of the Act (725 ILCS 207/65 (West 2016)). Subsequently, the trial court granted respondent's request, through counsel, for an independent examiner, but the court struck the pro se petition as improperly filed.

¶ 4 In March 2021, the trial court allowed respondent to proceed pro se, and in June 2021, the court reinstated respondent's September 2017 petition for discharge. Following several continuances and status hearings regarding respondent's receiving an independent evaluation, the court conducted a hearing on the petition for discharge in July 2022. The court denied respondent's petition, finding that no probable cause existed to believe that respondent was no longer an SVP.

¶ 5 Respondent appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by (1) denying him his preferred independent evaluator and (2) finding no probable cause to believe that respondent was no longer an SVP. We disagree and affirm.

¶ 6 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 7 A. Respondent's Detention and Subsequent Procedural History

¶ 8 In November 1999, the State charged respondent with aggravated criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/12-16(d) (West 1998)). Following a jury trial, respondent was convicted and later sentenced to seven years in prison. In May 2004, this court reversed respondent's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. People v. Stanbridge, 348 Ill.App.3d 351, 810 N.E.2d 88 (2004). Following an April 2005 retrial, a jury convicted respondent of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. Respondent appealed, and this court affirmed that conviction. People v. Stanbridge, No. 4-05-0585 (2007) (unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23).

¶ 9 In May 2005, the State petitioned the trial court to detain respondent pursuant to the Act. Following an October 2007 trial on the State's petition, a jury adjudicated respondent an SVP as defined by section 5(f) of the Act (725 ILCS 207/5(f) (West 2004)). In February 2008, the trial court ordered respondent committed to a secure facility for institutional care until "such time as [Respondent is no longer a sexually violent person."

¶ 10 In November 2008, this court affirmed the trial court's judgment on direct appeal, concluding that "the State overwhelmingly demonstrated that respondent was a sexually violent person beyond a reasonable doubt." In re Detention of Stanbridge, No. 4-08-0163 (2008) (unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23).

¶ 11 Subsequently, respondent was periodically reevaluated, requested independent examinations, and filed petitions for discharge. See In re Commitment of Stanbridge, 2017 IL App (4th) 160387-U, ¶¶ 8-31. Each of respondent's petitions for discharge was denied by the trial court and affirmed on appeal. See In re Detention of Stanbridge, 2012 IL 112337, ¶ 76, 980 N.E.2d 598 (affirming the trial court's finding of no probable cause because respondent had not presented evidence of sufficient progress or other relevant changed circumstances); In re Commitment of Stanbridge, 2014 IL App (4th) 130703-U, ¶¶ 51-52 (affirming the trial court's dismissal of the petition for discharge based on respondent's 54-month reexamination); In re Commitment of Stanbridge, 2014 IL App (4th) 131063-U, ¶ 38 (affirming the trial court's finding of no probable cause based on respondent's 66-month reexamination); In re Commitment of Stanbridge, 2017 IL App (4th) 160387-U, ¶ 46 (affirming the trial court's denial of respondent's motion for independent evaluation and finding of no probable cause based on respondent's 78-month and 90-month reexaminations).

¶ 12 B. The Petition for Discharge at Issue in This Appeal

¶ 13 In September 2017, respondent, while represented by counsel, pro se filed a petition for discharge pursuant to section 65 of the Act (725 ILCS 207/65 (West 2016)). In June 2018, the State filed a motion for a finding of no probable cause. That same month, respondent, through counsel, sought the appointment of an independent evaluator and, without objection by the State, the trial court granted respondent's request. For reasons not clear from the record, counsel had difficulty contacting the initial evaluator and requested the appointment of a new one.

¶ 14 In February 2020, by agreement of the parties, the trial court appointed Dr. Diane Lytton as an independent evaluator.

¶ 15 In October 2020, respondent filed a motion requesting the trial court terminate his counsel's representation and allow him to proceed pro se.

¶ 16 In March 2021, the trial court conducted a hearing on respondent's motion to proceed pro se. The court granted respondent's motion and permitted counsel to withdraw. Respondent's counsel said she would get all of the discovery materials to Lytton. Because respondent was confined and no longer had an attorney, the State offered logistical assistance in facilitating the examination by Lytton, and respondent accepted the assistance.

¶ 17 In May 2021, at a status hearing, the State advised the trial court that an interview had not been scheduled due to a COVID-19 issue. Additionally, although the State had given Lytton 80% to 90% of the information, she still needed some records. The State again informed the court that it would facilitate scheduling an interview.

¶ 18 In July 2021, the parties informed the trial court that Lytton had conducted a six- and-a-half-hour interview with respondent, but a technical issue was preventing Lytton from opening a relevant document that she needed to review. The State said that once Lytton was able to review that record, she would be scheduling a follow-up interview.

¶ 19 The record and docket show that the trial court conducted hearings in September, October, and December 2021. However, no transcripts from those hearings are included in the record on appeal.

¶ 20 On December 7, 2021, the State filed a 26-page report of a psychological evaluation of respondent (pursuant to the Act) conducted by Edward Smith, Psy.D., on November 29, 2021. Smith's report stated that it was an "annual re-examination" mandated by the Act and its purpose was to answer whether (1) respondent had "made sufficient progress in treatment to be conditionally released" and (2) respondent's "condition changed since the most recent periodic re-examination such that he is no longer a sexually violent person [within the meaning of the Act]." Smith opined that respondent's condition had not changed since his most recent re-evaluation, noting that respondent "continue[d] to decline participation in sex offender specific treatment" such that he "ha[d] not progressed in treatment to the point where he [could] be safely managed in the community on Conditional Release."

¶ 21 The trial court subsequently conducted hearings in February and March 2022, but, again, no transcripts of those hearings are included in the record on appeal.

¶ 22 In April 2022, the trial court ordered the State to "forward expert names and contact information to [the] court." In May 2022, the court entered an order stating that the State "has furnished a list of providers for the Respondent to contact for purposes of locating an expert witness to perform a[n] evaluation of the Respondent."

¶ 23 In July 2022, the trial court conducted a hearing on respondent's petition for discharge. No transcript of the hearing is included in the record on appeal. However, the court entered a written order, which stated the following:

"1. The Respondent is appearing pro se at his request, having previously waived his right to counsel herein.

2. On 9/27/17, respondent filed a pro se pleading herein entitled Motion/Demand for discharge; that since said date, Respondent has never been successful in obtaining the services of an independent evaluator.

3. On 12/7/21, the report of the most recent re-evaluation examination of the Respondent by Dr. Edward Smith was filed herein.

4. Pursuant to 725 ILCS 207/65(b)(1), and after reviewing the pending Motion for discharge and the re-evaluation report described above, the Court finds that the Respondent is still a sexually violent person; and that there is no probable cause to believe that the Respondent is no longer a sexually violent person.

5. Pursuant to the above findings, the pending Motion for discharge is denied; and that the Respondent is continued at Department of Human

...