People v. Fullerton , 2024 IL App (5th) 230086-U ( 2024 )

2024 IL App (5th) 230086-UNOTICE
NOTICE
Decision filed 02/23/24. The
This order was filed under
text of this decision may be NO. 5-23-0086 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
changed or corrected prior to
not precedent except in the
the filing of a Petition for
Rehearing or the disposition of
IN THE limited circumstances allowed
the same. under Rule 23(e)(1).
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Macon County.
)
v. ) No. 06-CF-659
)
DOMENIC E. FULLERTON, ) Honorable
) Thomas E. Griffith Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE BOIE delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Moore and Barberis concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The trial court’s finding that the respondent remained a sexually dangerous person
under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act was not against the manifest weight of
the evidence.
¶2 In 2008, the respondent, Domenic E. Fullerton, was adjudicated a sexually dangerous
person under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (SDP Act) (725 ILCS 205/0.01 et seq. (West
2008)), and the trial court committed him to the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(IDOC), until such time as he was no longer a sexually dangerous person. On May 21, 2021, the
respondent filed an application for discharge or conditional release pursuant to section 9(a) of the
SDP Act, alleging that he had recovered and was no longer a sexually dangerous person. Id. § 9(a).
Following a bench trial, the trial court entered a written order finding that the respondent remained
sexually dangerous and denying his application. The respondent appeals, arguing that the trial
1
court erred in denying his application for conditional release because he has made dramatic
improvement in his treatment, and that the trial court’s findings and denial of his application was
against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
¶3 I. FACTS
¶4 On May 9, 2006, the respondent was charged by information with two counts of predatory
criminal sexual assault of a child against J.G., a minor under the age of 13. 720 ILCS 5/12-14.1
(West 2006). On August 10, 2006, the State filed a petition to declare the respondent a sexually
dangerous person pursuant to the SDP Act (725 ILCS 205/0.01 et seq (West 2006)). On April 25,
2008, after a stipulated bench trial, the trial court found the respondent to be a sexually dangerous
person and committed the respondent to the custody of the IDOC.
¶5 On May 21, 2021, the respondent filed a pro se application for discharge or conditional
release pursuant to section 9(a) of the SDP Act (id. § 9(a)), alleging that he had recovered and was
no longer a sexually dangerous person. The respondent alleged that, for the reasons detailed in his
application, the penultimate step in his pursuit of recovery would be a period of conditional release,
with conditions and risk prevention measures in place. The respondent further alleged that he had
a safe and adequate release plan in place that would serve the dual objective of providing essential
protection to the public, and allowing the necessary liberty to establish that he was fully recovered.
The respondent requested that the trial court grant him conditional release from commitment. The
trial court appointed counsel to represent the respondent.
¶6 On August 25, 2021, the Attorney General of the State of Illinois entered its appearance on
behalf of the acting director of the IDOC. On November 8, 2021, the trial court ordered the IDOC
to appoint an evaluator and file a statutorily mandated socio-psychiatric evaluation report on the
2
respondent. See id. § 9(a). On March 31, 2022, the IDOC filed a sexually dangerous persons
evaluation report prepared by Dr. Kristopher Clounch, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist and
sex offender evaluator. On September 13, 2022, the respondent filed a motion for the appointment
of an expert witness, which was denied by the trial court on the same day. Also on the same date,
the respondent requested the matter proceed to jury trial and the matter was rescheduled.
¶7 The trial court conducted a recovery hearing on the respondent’s application on January
24, 2023. Prior to the presentation of testimony, and after the proper admonishments by the trial
court, the respondent waived jury trial by written waiver. The State’s only witness was Dr.
Clounch, and defense counsel stipulated to Dr. Clounch’s qualifications and to being an expert in
assessing individuals under the SDP Act. Dr. Clounch testified that he was an employee of
Wexford Health Services that contracts with the State of Illinois to perform sexually
dangerous persons evaluations and that he had performed an in-person evaluation of the
respondent on March 16, 2022.
¶8 Dr. Clounch testified that the respondent was previously diagnosed with depression
and suicidal thoughts. Dr. Clounch had primarily diagnosed the respondent with a pedophilic
disorder, sexually attracted to males non-exclusive, which related to his being a sexually
dangerous person. Dr. Clounch stated that the respondent’s diagnosis indicated that he had
sexual behaviors, fantasies and/or urges to engage in sexual conduct with prepubescent
children typically under the age of 13. Dr. Clounch indicated that the respondent had shown
prior propensity to commit acts of sexual violence or molestation, citing the fact that the
respondent had been arrested on two separate occasions for engaging in sexual contact with
two young males. The first occasion was in 1988, when he was charged and convicted of
criminal sexual assault for engaging in anal sex with a 5-year-old unrelated male, K.H. The
3
second occasion was in 2006, when he was charged with two counts of predatory criminal
sexual assault of a child for engaging in oral and anal sex with a 7-year-old unrelated male,
J.G.
¶9 Dr. Clounch explained that in both of these cases, as well as other offenses that the
respondent reported, the respondent displayed grooming behaviors by meeting the families
and then either moving in with the family or providing babysitting services, thereby giving
him open access to the child, and ultimately, offending upon the child on multiple occasions.
Dr. Clounch elaborated on the respondent’s uncharged conduct, stating that the respondent
had initially indicated he had five victims. However, upon being challenged with his previous
report of having 10 victims, the respondent stated that he had peeped on or watched four or
five male victims and then there were five contact victims. Two of those contact victims were
the ones he was arrested for. The other three incidents were with a 5-year-old male family
member, and the respondent sexually penetrated the child on four or five occasions when the
respondent was 13 or 14 years old. Further, over a period of one to two years, the respondent
sexually offended another male family member when he was between the ages of 7 and 10.
Lastly, Dr. Clounch stated that the respondent also sexually offended J.G.’s younger brother
while the child was sleeping.
¶ 10 Dr. Clounch further discussed the respondent’s victimization of his stepson, which
began in 1988 when the respondent met the child’s mother. This occurred after the
respondent’s first criminal sexual assault conviction while he was on probation and in sex
offender treatment. The respondent engaged in the relationship and ultimately married the
child’s mother in 1989. They divorced in 1994, but remarried in the late 1990s or early 2000s,
4
but divorced again in 2003. When the couple met, the child was 5 or 6 years old, and the
respondent offended against the child until he turned 10.
¶ 11 Dr. Clounch stated that during the most recent evaluation interview, as well as a
previous interview, the respondent reported that he was arrested in 2000 for another offense
against the child, but that there was no official record of the offense. When asked whether the
respondent hid this relationship and offenses from probation or treatment at the time, Dr.
Clounch stated he was unaware and had no records indicating that the respondent disclosed
the relationship or his offenses during that time during his treatment or to probation.
¶ 12 Dr. Clounch testified that, in evaluating the respondent, he completed and scored three
actuarial assessment measures to determine if the respondent was substantially probable to re-
offend. These included the Static-99R, STABLE-2007, and the violence risk scale offender
version, known as the VRS-SO.
¶ 13 Dr. Clounch explained that the Static-99R was initially compiled in 1999, and is a 10-item
measure addressing primarily static factors that had been found by research to be related to re-
offense for male sexual offenders, and is the most widely used measurement in the world for the
purposes of actuarial assessment. Dr. Clounch explained that it has a range of scores from negative
3 to 13, and that he scored the respondent at a 2 on the measure. This score would place the
respondent in the average category, which would be in the 48.3rd percentile, meaning that 39 of
100 sex offenders would score below the respondent. Dr. Clounch explained that individuals with
a similar score of 2 have been found to re-offend at a rate approximately equal to the rate of a
typical sex offender.
¶ 14 Dr. Clounch then testified that the STABLE-2007 utilizes 13 dynamic risk factors found
to be related to the risk to re-offend for male offenders. According to Dr. Clounch, the factors had
5
been researched for approximately 15 to 20 years. Using this assessment, the respondent scored
17 out of a possible 26 points, which indicated a high level of stable dynamic risk. The
respondent’s score of 17 placed him in the 95th percentile, indicating that 95 of 100 sex offenders
would score below the respondent.
¶ 15 Dr. Clounch testified that the Static-99R and STABLE-2007 are used in conjunction with
one another to provide an overall risk category for the respondent. When combining the
respondent’s score of 17 on the STABLE-2007, with a Static-99R score of 2, it placed the
respondent in the “well-above average category,” which was the “highest category we have” for
the sex offender risk levels, indicating that individuals in this category re-offend at a rate of 3 to 4
times the rate of the average offender convicted of the sex offenses.
¶ 16 Dr. Clounch then described the third assessment, the VRS-SO, utilized in his evaluation.
The VRS-SO is a measure that contains both a static and a dynamic section. Dr. Clounch scored
the respondent at a 12 on the static factors and at a 40 on the dynamic factors, for a total of 52 out
of a possible 72 in this assessment. This also placed the respondent in the “well-above average”
category. This assessment provides both a 5 and a 10 year risk percentage for the individual being
re-arrested and/or convicted of a future sex offense. Using the VRS-SO calculator, the
respondent’s risk to re-offend for five years would be 30.3% and for 10 years would be 43.6%. Dr.
Clounch emphasized that this would be a conservative measure of the respondent’s actual risk to
re-offend. Dr. Clounch explained that research from the rape and incest network using justice
bureau statistics had shown that of 1000 sex offenses that occur, approximately only a third are
reported to authorities. Therefore, approximately 300 to 350 of those offenses reported, only 60 to
70 result in an actual arrest, meaning approximately only 6 or 7% actually result in the arrest of
the offender.
6
¶ 17 Dr. Clounch stated that, based upon the assessments performed, his expertise, and a
reasonable degree of scientific certainty, his opinion was that there was a substantial probability
that the respondent would re-offend with a sexual offense if not confined. Dr. Clounch stated that
his opinion was based on using the current measures, which are predictive of future offending for
male offenders, as well as the respondent’s diagnosis of pedophilic disorder and his current lack
of progress in his treatment. When asked his opinion about whether the respondent remained a
sexually dangerous person, Dr. Clounch opined, based on a reasonable degree of scientific
certainty, that the respondent remained a sexually dangerous person.
¶ 18 Dr. Clounch was then questioned about whether the respondent had any protective factors
regarding his risk of re-offending. In response, Dr. Clounch acknowledged that there were three
protective factors he considered regarding the respondent. The three protective risk factors
included an individual’s advanced age and/or health decline, an individual’s being in the
community for an extended period of time without re-offending, and whether the individual made
either significant progress and/or completed a sex offender treatment program. Dr. Clounch
testified that only one factor applied to the respondent, stating that the respondent was between 40
and 60 years old, which results in a one-point reduction in his Static-99R score. However, Dr.
Clounch stated that this did not change his opinion that the respondent was still substantially
probable to re-offend.
¶ 19 Dr. Clounch acknowledged that the respondent had been in treatment while housed in the
IDOC and had made progress in his treatment. According to Dr. Clounch, the respondent
participated in approximately 69% of the group sessions that he attended. The respondent had
attended three separate groups since 2014; however, he attended two of those groups in 2017 and
was removed from those groups for missing three or more sessions. The third group session the
7
respondent participated in was a therapy group, which is considered the primary group that
offenders participate in.
¶ 20 Dr. Clounch was advised by the respondent’s prior therapist and his current program
director that he adequately participated in, and regularly attended, those group sessions. When Dr.
Clounch inquired regarding the respondent’s ability to recognize his cognitive distortions, he was
informed that the respondent typically required others to point out his cognitive distortions and
thinking errors, and he did not appear to be challenging those in the moment or during the group
sessions. Further, when Dr. Clounch inquired about the respondent’s addressing of his sexual
deviance during the group sessions, he was informed that the only evidence that the respondent
was addressing the issue was at the end of 2021, when the respondent repeatedly requested to be
placed on a different wing at the IDOC facility so that he could be closer to a specific sexually
dangerous person of whom he was sexually attracted to and or possibly had a prior relationship
with.
¶ 21 According to Dr. Clounch, it was clear from that information and the respondent’s
treatment groups that he had significant difficulty with recognizing his cognitive distortions,
challenging those distortions, and then ultimately recognizing his sexual deviance and addressing
that during his group sessions. Dr. Clounch then stated that there was a concern regarding the
respondent’s relationship with another sexually dangerous person since he was still in treatment
but continued to, or attempted to, engage in a sexually deviant relationship in the facility. Dr.
Clounch explained that, although the relationship would be appropriate if they were in the
community, since they were still housed in the facility, such a relationship was considered a
deviant relationship and not allowed. Dr. Clounch stated that this relationship was similar to the
8
respondent’s prior experience in the community when he was in treatment but was offending on a
young child during that time.
¶ 22 Regarding the respondent’s plans if he were to be released into the community, Dr.
Clounch testified that he spoke with the respondent regarding his plans but had concerns.
According to Dr. Clounch, when asked who he most wanted to see when released, the respondent
stated his mother, his son, and his grandson who was 10 years old. Dr. Clounch was concerned
with the respondent’s wanting to have a relationship with his grandson because the child would fit
the respondent’s victim profile since he had offended against both related and unrelated victims.
Dr. Clounch’s March 31, 2022, evaluation report was admitted into evidence without objection.
¶ 23 On cross-examination, Dr. Clounch acknowledged that the respondent had two prior arrests
for sexual offenses, the first resulting in a probation sentence and the second resulting in being
committed as a sexually dangerous person. Dr. Clounch stated that during his interview and during
therapy, the respondent disclosed other offenses for which he was never arrested or prosecuted.
Dr. Clounch then agreed that one of the purposes of therapy and speaking with any specialist was
to try to make sure a full and honest picture of what the respondent’s background looked like.
¶ 24 When questioned regarding the respondent’s progress, Dr. Clounch agreed that prior to
2017, the respondent was engaged in three groups until he was removed from two of the groups.
Further, the respondent continued his therapy except for two times when he signed himself out of
treatment. Dr. Clounch stated that since that time, the respondent was regularly attending and
participating in his therapy. At that time, the only therapy available to the respondent was group
therapy sessions since there was only one therapist available to provide services.
¶ 25 Defense counsel referenced the respondent’s prior treatment plan from 2019, noting that at
that time, the respondent was considered to be in Phase 1, and that the Phase program had been
9
discontinued. Dr. Clounch stated that since December 2019, there probably had been some
progress. However, there had been continued difficulties primarily with the respondent’s ability to
recognize and challenge his distorted thinking, as he had several incidences of attempted deviant
behavior and was unwilling to admit to those incidents during treatment and acknowledge that
there is a sexual motivation for some of his behaviors. As examples, Dr. Clounch referenced that,
at the end of 2021, the respondent purchased shoes for another sexually dangerous person and
requested to purchase books that depicted stories of child sexual abuse. According to Dr. Clounch,
this showed the respondent’s continued display of his sexually deviant behavior and interest. Dr.
Clounch was questioned regarding the respondent’s relationships or sexual attraction with other
individuals in the IDOC facility. Dr. Clounch indicated that part of the issue with this was that the
individuals were all located within the facility, but also because, although over the age of 18, many
of the individuals the respondent was interested in were the younger looking and acting individuals
in the facility and more similar to the respondent’s victim profile.
¶ 26 Dr. Clounch agreed that while in treatment since 2018, the respondent started to show
concern in his therapy groups about victims and how victims handle their abuse, thereby
recognizing the role he played in the abuse. Further, the respondent asked questions regarding how
a person knows if they are still in their cycle. Accordingly, Dr. Clounch agreed that the respondent
was exploring the background for why he did what he did. Also, Dr. Clounch acknowledged that
even though his evaluation report stated that it was important for the respondent to participate more
fully in his treatment to get a better understanding of his offending process and bolster his coping
skills and interventions to reduce his risk to re-offend sexually, at that time, the respondent was
being offered the just one group session per week.
10
¶ 27 Dr. Clounch was then questioned regarding the respondent’s scores of 2 on the Static-99R
and 17 on the STABLE-2007, and if those were objective measures or if there was some subjective
aspect to them. Dr. Clounch responded that the measure for the Static-99R comes primarily from
the respondent’s records and his own reporting, while there is a more subjective understanding for
the STABLE-2007. Dr. Clounch acknowledged that he was unaware that the respondent had been
placed on A grade minimum security since 2015. Regarding the VRS-SO assessment, Dr. Clounch
stated that the respondent showed a 30% chance of being re-arrested or re-convicted, not
necessarily re-offending, within five years.
¶ 28 Dr. Clounch agreed that one of his concerns with the respondent’s conditional release was
his interest in establishing a relationship with his grandson. Dr. Clounch disagreed with defense
counsel’s assertion that the IDOC would maintain control over the respondent if released. Dr.
Clounch stated that if released, the respondent would have stipulations set by the IDOC and have
an electronic monitor; however, there would not be someone with the respondent all of the time to
make sure he would not be re-offending. Dr. Clounch did agree that if the respondent were to be
released, the court would have to approve a conditional release plan that would include restricting
where the respondent lived, worked, and how far he could go on the electronic monitor. Further,
if released, the respondent would be required to attend treatment in the community, perhaps for
more than one hour per week.
¶ 29 On re-direct examination, Dr. Clounch testified that the respondent’s being placed on A
grade minimum security would not have affected his opinion regarding the respondent. Further,
Dr. Clounch had never considered the respondent’s security level in any of his evaluations because
that was “a totally separate issue.”
11
¶ 30 The trial court referenced the respondent’s most recent semiannual program evaluation for
the period of July 2019 through December 2019, where the respondent was noted to be in Phase 1
of the treatment program. Dr. Clounch acknowledged that information was included in his
evaluation report. The trial court stated that the program evaluation indicated numerous different
areas that the respondent needed, either some improvement, a considerable need for improvement,
or a very, very considerable need for improvement. The trial court asked Dr. Clounch what the
respondent’s level of treatment progress was at the current time compared to what it was in
December 2019. Dr. Clounch stated that, according to his assessment and the respondent’s
treatment notes, many of the factors would not change significantly, especially many of the ones
that were in very critical need of improvement.
¶ 31 Dr. Clounch specifically explained that when he asked the respondent questions regarding
his deviant cycle, the respondent “did not know about that,” and that the respondent could only list
a few interventions. Dr. Clounch stated that the respondent did not recognize his cognitive
distortions and he did not restructure them. Dr. Clounch continued, stating that the respondent was
very much at the same sexual deviance level currently as he was in 2019. Further, during the
assessment, the respondent did not present an understanding of his core beliefs. Dr. Clounch also
stated that, although the respondent could recognize some high-risk factors and triggers, the
respondent struggled in group treatment with fully recognizing his high-risk factors and triggers,
and is likely placing himself at a higher risk. In support of his opinion, Dr. Clounch referenced the
respondent’s behaviors of attempting to move to another wing in the facility to be nearer to an
individual he was attracted to, purchasing shoes for another sexually dangerous person, and
purchasing books with sexually graphic descriptions of the sexual abuse of children.
12
¶ 32 According to Dr. Clounch, when considering many of the factors, especially the ones
judging an individual’s progress and their ability to be released into the community, the respondent
was still displaying problems in those major areas. The trial court then referenced the respondent’s
learning disability, asking Dr. Clounch if that may have contributed to the fact that the respondent
had not made much progress in treatment. Dr. Clounch acknowledged that the learning disability
would make it more difficult for an individual to make progress, but that he did not believe it
affected the respondent’s progress. Dr. Clounch stated that the facility had lower functioning
groups and that the respondent could understand much of the material that was presented in the
regular group sessions.
¶ 33 At the conclusion of the testimony and arguments of counsel, the trial court ruled as
follows:
“So ***, show then that the Court has considered the pleadings, the sworn
testimony, the exhibit and the statements of counsel.
The [respondent’s] application for conditional release for discharge is denied.
Finding by the Court, the State has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the
respondent is still a sexually dangerous person and it is substantially probable the
respondent will engage in the commission of sex offenses in the future if not confined.
And counsel, the facts or factors here I deem to be appropriate: [Respondent] is 54
years of age. He’s committed at least two sets of very grave offenses against young boys.
He has been incarcerated the last 16 or 17 years. I know there were other incidents
disclosed; both in the preparation of this report and as part of treatment. The respondent is
diagnosed with pedophilia directed towards prepubescent young boys.
13
In terms of treatment progress, and really that’s the sticking point; it sounds like at
least in using the old categories, he’s barely out of stage 1. I think that’s due to two factors:
1. The respondent’s lack of effort.
And 2. I think COVID has certainly put a damper on things.
And I also state for the record that one group session a week is wholly inadequate,
especially when you have people confined for years upon years upon years.
The respondent continues to be high risk on both the Static-99R and the Stable-
2007. Regarding the VRS, the respondent is still well above average. And it is Dr.
Clounch’s opinion—I really have to rely on Doctor Clounch; I’m not an expert in this
field—that the respondent continues to be a sexually dangerous person in need of
treatment, and in further need of being confined; at least at this time.
I will also state, [respondent], I’ve said this before, but if you come back here in a
couple years and I can see from the report that you’re really making a great effort yourself
to succeed in treatment, I would probably recommend conditional release at that time. You
understand, [respondent]?”
This appeal followed.
¶ 34 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 35 Under section 9(a) of the SDP Act, a respondent who has been found to be a sexually
dangerous person may submit an application to the trial court setting forth facts showing that he
has recovered. 725 ILCS 205/9(a) (West 2022). Section 9(a) of the SDP Act states:
“An application in writing setting forth facts showing that the sexually dangerous
person or criminal sexual psychopathic person has recovered may be filed before
the committing court. Upon receipt thereof, the clerk of the court shall cause a copy
14
of the application to be sent to the Director of the Department of Corrections. The
Director shall then cause to be prepared and sent to the court a socio-psychiatric
report concerning the applicant. The report shall be prepared by an evaluator
licensed under the Sex Offender Evaluation and Treatment Provider Act. The court
shall set a date for the hearing upon the application and shall consider the report so
prepared under the direction of the Director of the Department of Corrections and
any other relevant information submitted by or on behalf of the applicant.” Id.
¶ 36 Once the respondent files an application, the court must hold a hearing, and the State has
the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent remains a sexually
dangerous person. Id. § 9(b); People v. Hancock, 2014 IL App (4th) 131069, ¶ 139. The respondent
is a sexually dangerous person if he has (1) a mental disorder existing for at least one year before
the petition was filed, (2) criminal propensities to the commission of sex offenses, and
(3) demonstrated propensities toward acts of sexual assault or sexual molestation of children. 725
ILCS 205/1.01 (West 2020); People v. Holmes, 2016 IL App (1st) 132357, ¶ 103. “ ‘[C]riminal
propensities to the commission of sex offenses’ means that it is substantially probable that the
person subject to the commitment proceedings will engage in the commission of sex offenses in
the future if not confined.” 725 ILCS 205/4.05 (West 2020).
¶ 37 The respondent argues that the evidence presented at the recovery hearing did not support
the trial court’s finding that he remained a sexually dangerous person and the denial of the
respondent’s petition for discharge or conditional release. The trial court’s finding that the
respondent is still sexually dangerous may not be disturbed on review unless that decision is
against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Houde, 2019 IL App (3d) 180309, ¶ 26. A
decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if an opposite conclusion is clearly
15
apparent. Id. On appeal from a recovery hearing, we must consider all of the evidence introduced
at trial in the light most favorable to the State and determine whether any rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements to be proven by clear and convincing evidence. 725 ILCS
205/9(a) (West 2020); People v. Bailey, 405 Ill. App. 3d 154, 171 (2010). We also note that the
trier of fact is in the best position to weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of the testimony
and evidence presented. Houde, 2019 IL App (3d) 180309, ¶ 26.
¶ 38 Section 1.01 of the SDP Act defines “sexually dangerous persons” as:
“All persons suffering from a mental disorder, which mental disorder has existed
for a period of not less than one year, immediately prior to the filing of the petition
hereinafter provided for, coupled with criminal propensities to the commission of sex
offenses, and who have demonstrated propensities toward acts of sexual assault or acts of
sexual molestation of children ***.” 725 ILCS 205/1.01 (West 2020).
¶ 39 The crux of the respondent’s argument is that he has been committed as a sexually
dangerous person since 2008. During that entire time, the respondent received treatment and was
making progress in his treatment. The respondent contends that Dr. Clounch admitted that the
respondent had started to show concern about how some of his victims handled their abuse and
was recognizing the role he played in that abuse. Further, the respondent contends that evidence
was presented that he could be electronically monitored if he was released and that he would be
required to attend treatment. Additionally, the respondent argues that Dr. Clounch discussed the
respondent’s protective factors that could reduce the risk of his re-offending, including him being
sex offense free for a significant period of time, his age, and his completion of a cognitive-
behavioral sex offender treatment program. The respondent argues that these are positive steps in
the respondent’s favor and show a dramatic improvement in his treatment. Accordingly, the
16
respondent argues that the trial court’s decision that the respondent remained a sexually dangerous
person and denying conditional release was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We
disagree.
¶ 40 The sexually dangerous person’s evaluation report prepared by Dr. Clounch was admitted
into evidence and fully considered by the trial court. In his report, Dr. Clounch extensively set
forth the respondent’s various mental disorders that have existed for over a year or more, and are
accompanied by criminal propensities to the commission of sex offenses. Dr. Clounch testified
regarding the statistical testing conducted on the respondent, and that he demonstrated propensities
toward acts of sexual assault or molestation of children.
¶ 41 Dr. Clounch testified at length that his expert opinion was that the respondent is
substantially probable to re-offend if not confined and explained that the respondent had not
lessened his propensity to commit sex offenses through treatment. Dr. Clounch explained his usage
of actuarial measures (the Static-99R, STABLE-2007, and VRS-SO), all generally accepted by
experts in the field for measuring risk of future offending. All of the actuarial measures indicated
that the respondent maintained a high probability of re-offending. Dr. Clounch also testified that
he considered the potential protective factors that reduced the respondent’s risk to re-offend. Dr.
Clounch stated that only one protective factor applied to the respondent and one point was reduced
on the Static-99R score due to his age. Dr. Clounch acknowledged his awareness of the protective
factors, however, they did not change his opinion that the respondent was still substantially
probable to re-offend.
¶ 42 Therefore, we find that the evidence presented by State through Dr. Clounch’s testimony
and report demonstrated that the respondent remained a sexually dangerous person as defined by
the SDP Act and was sufficient for a reasonable fact finder to find by clear and convincing
17
evidence that the respondent remained a sexually dangerous person. After a thorough review, we
find nothing in the record that would require us to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.
The trial court was in the best position to evaluate the expert testimony, make credibility
determinations, and determine the weight to be given to the evidence and any inferences therefrom.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court’s finding that the respondent remained a
sexually dangerous person was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 43 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 44 For the forgoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Macon County is affirmed.
¶ 45 Affirmed.
18