In re Commitment of Stanbridge , 2024 IL App (4th) 220686-U ( 2024 )

NOTICE 2024 IL App (4th) 220686-UThis Order was filed under Su- FILED
preme Court Rule 23 and is not NO. 4-22-0686 February 13, 2024
precedent except in the limited Carla Bender
circumstances allowed under IN THE APPELLATE COURT 4th District Appellate
Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
In re COMMITMENT OF KEVIN W. ) Appeal from the
STANBRIDGE, a Sexually Violent Person ) Circuit Court of
) Adams County
(The People of the State of Illinois, ) No. 05MR45
Petitioner-Appellee, )
v. ) Honorable
Kevin W. Stanbridge, ) John C. Wooleyhan,
Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Turner and Justice Harris concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶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Stanbridge, No. 4-08-0163 (2008) (unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23).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
-2-
time as [r]espondent 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
-3-
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.
-4-
¶ 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
-5-
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 Services
for care, control, and treatment as previously ordered by this Court.”
¶ 24 This appeal followed.
¶ 25 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 26 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. However, respondent’s arguments fail because, as the State points out, the
record does not contain a transcript of the discharge hearing or any acceptable alternative to a
transcript.
¶ 27 In his brief, respondent argues that the trial court refused to appoint an
independent evaluator proposed by him because the evaluator was too expensive. Respondent
further argues the court required him to put together a list of other experts and to contact those
experts himself. Respondent then asserts that the court erred by finding that he failed to obtain an
independent evaluator because he, as a pro se civil committee, did not have the ability or
authority to negotiate hiring an expert.
-6-
¶ 28 Respondent acknowledges that he did not include in the record on appeal any
transcripts from hearings conducted after July 2021, but he insists that he is not at fault.
Respondent contends that, in his notice of appeal, he explicitly requested the trial court to
“[d]irect the Court Reporting Personnel to prepare any and all transcripts of the proceedings
appealed, with copies to be provided to the Appellant as well as the Appellate Court Clerk.”
Respondent asserts that he is unaware of any other way to obtain transcripts and this court should
be lenient in light of the fact that respondent is pro se. We disagree.
¶ 29 The burdens for providing a record and the manner in which this court must
review an incomplete record are well settled.
“It is well established that an appellant has the burden to present a sufficiently
complete record of the proceedings at trial to support a claim of error. [Citation.]
Thus, in the absence of such records, it is presumed that the order entered by the
trial court was in conformity with law and had a sufficient factual basis.
[Citation.] Any doubts regarding the incompleteness of the record are, as always,
resolved against the appellant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re
Commitment of Montilla, 2022 IL App (1st) 200913, ¶ 93, 215 N.E.3d 230(quoting Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92, 459 N.E.2d 958, 959 (1984)).
¶ 30 Further, although we recognize respondent made a request for the preparation of
transcripts in his notice of appeal, respondent is not excused from ensuring those transcripts are
prepared or providing an alternative, such as a bystander’s report or an agreed statement of facts.
See Ill. S. Ct. R. 323 (eff. July 1, 2017). “Rule 323, like the other supreme court rules governing
appeals, is not a mere suggestion. [Citation.] Rather, the rule has the force and effect of law and
is binding on litigants as well as the courts.” In re Marriage of Thomsen, 371 Ill. App. 3d 236,
-7-
241, 872 N.E.2d 1, 6 (2007). “While pro se litigants are held to a lesser standard in complying
with the rules for appealing to the appellate court, an appellant is required to meet a minimum
threshold in providing the court with an adequate record to review the issues raised on appeal.”
King v. Find-A-Way Shipping, LLC, 2020 IL App (1st) 191307, ¶ 29, 172 N.E.3d 247.
¶ 31 Because respondent has failed to furnish a proper record of the proceedings
pertaining to retaining an independent evaluator or the discharge hearing, we are unable to
conclude that the trial court erred by denying respondent’s petition for discharge without an
independent evaluation.
¶ 32 Regardless, because respondent’s arguments are meritless and easily disposed of,
we briefly address each in turn.
¶ 33 A. Respondent Was Not Prejudiced by the Trial Court’s Denial of
an Independent Evaluator
¶ 34 Even putting aside the absence of a complete record on appeal, the record that is
available clearly demonstrates that respondent was not prejudiced by the trial court’s denial of an
independent evaluator.
¶ 35 The First District explained the law governing when an independent evaluator is
required in In re Commitment of Butler, 2022 IL App (1st) 201107, ¶ 32, 212 N.E.3d 143, in
which it wrote the following:
“While the Act allows for the appointment of an expert for an indigent
individual, it does not require a court to take such action. In re Commitment of
Kirst, 2015 IL App (2d) 140532, ¶ 33, 40 N.E.3d 1215. ‘A respondent may be
entitled to funds to hire an expert witness where expert testimony is deemed
“crucial” to a proper defense.’ Id. (citing People v. Botruff, 212 Ill. 2d 166, 177,
817 N.E.2d 463, 469 (2004)). ‘This is established where the respondent
-8-
demonstrates that his case will be prejudiced if his request is denied.’ Id. The
decision whether to appoint an independent examiner *** rests within the sound
discretion of the trial court.”
¶ 36 In this case, Smith’s December 2021 reexamination report demonstrates that
respondent was not prejudiced by not having an independent evaluation. Smith identified, as he
has in the past, respondent’s (1) mental disorders, (2) scores on actuarial assessments, and
(3) dynamic risk factors, which, taken together, supported his conclusion that respondent
remained an SVP. In particular, Smith noted that in his latest interview, respondent continued to
refuse to engage in sex offender treatment and deny he committed prior offenses.
¶ 37 In respondent’s brief to this court, he makes lengthy arguments that sex offender
treatment is ineffective and, in fact, increases the likelihood of reoffending. Given this context—
respondent’s (1) never having engaged in sex offender treatment, (2) continuing refusal to
participate in such treatment, and (3) arguing to the trial court and this court that some scientific
studies purportedly show that sex offender treatment increases recidivism—we conclude that
respondent’s case could not have been prejudiced by denying him an independent evaluation
prior to ruling on his petition for discharge. See Stanbridge, 2017 IL App (4th) 160387-U, ¶ 46
(affirming the trial court’s denial of respondent’s motion for an independent examination for
substantially similar, if not identical, reasons).
¶ 38 B. The Trial Court Did Not Err by Finding No Probable Cause
¶ 39 Alternatively, respondent argues that the trial court erred by finding no probable
cause to believe that respondent is no longer an SVP.
“At a probable cause hearing for conditional release, the respondent must
present plausible evidence that it is not substantially probable that he will engage
-9-
in acts of sexual violence if he is on conditional release. [Citation.] This plausible
evidence can be (1) a change in the respondent himself, (2) a change in
professional knowledge or the methods used to evaluate a person’s mental
disorder or risk of reoffending, or (3) a change in the applicable legal definitions.”
In re Commitment of Canada, 2018 IL App (4th) 170511, ¶ 33, 107 N.E.3d 898(citing In re Detention of Stanbridge, 2012 IL 112337, ¶¶ 54, 72, 980 N.E.2d
598).
“Without some evidence of sufficient progress or other relevant changed circumstances, the
[expert’s] opinion was insufficient to establish probable cause.” Stanbridge, 2012 IL 112337,
¶ 76.
¶ 40 Our earlier analysis regarding why respondent was not prejudiced by the trial
court’s denial of his request for an independent examiner applies equally to the court’s finding of
no probable cause. Respondent admitted to Smith and this court that he has not (1) engaged in
any new forms of treatment or (2) changed his attitudes toward treatment or his prior offenses
since the last time this court affirmed reviewed respondent’s SVP status. See Stanbridge, 2017
IL App (4th) 160387-U, ¶ 46. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court’s finding of no probable
cause was correct, and we affirm the court’s judgment.
¶ 41 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 42 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 43 Affirmed.
- 10 -