No. 2-- 05--1135 Fil ed: 11-14-07

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF IL LINO IS, ) o f D u P ag e C o un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 04-- CF--2332 ) ALLEN B. JO

NES, ) Ho no r ab le ) Georg e J. Bakali s, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

________________________________________ _____ ___________________________________ _ JU STI CEMc LA

RE N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: De f en da n t, A l l en B. J on es, app eals t he t rial co ur t 's o rd er re vok ing his pr oba t ion and
re sent encing him t o fo ur yea r s inprison for the o ff

ense of stalki

ng (720 ILCS 5/ 12--7. 3(a)( 1) (West 20 04 )), argui

n g th at th e S tate failed t o p ro ve t hat defend ant di d n ot re por t to the Du P ag e C oun

ty prob ati on de pa rtm en t, or, in the al ternative, that his f

ai lure to report to the probation departmen t was willfu l. T he pe t it io n t o r ev o ke pr o ba t io n a lleg ed t ha t de fen da nt vio lat ed his p r o ba t io n by c o mple t ely failing t o r ep o r t t o t he Du Pa ge Co un t y pr o ba t io n d ep ar t men t . We affir m. Defend ant 's ma

in contention i s that the Stat e was requi red to prove that h i s f

ai l ur e to report to the Du Pa

ge Coun ty probati on de partm en t was wi l l f

ul
. Defendan

t cites Pe o ple v. Bre ch

on , 151 I ll. Ap p. 3d 10 40 (19 87), to support this con tenti on. Howe

ver, Bre ch

on is factual ly dis tingui shab le
. In Bre ch on , the defen

dant's probat ion of

fi cer le d the defe

ndan t t o reasonabl

y b elie ve that he was permi tt ed to lea ve Il li nois durin g hi s probation period. In this cas e, there was no evi dence thatNo. 2-- 05--1135

-2-

defend ant reasonabl

y b elie ved that he di

d not have to re port t o the Du Pag e C oun

ty prob ati on depa rtme nt. Theref

ore, Bre ch

on i s n ot controll

i ng. The Stat e s ugg ests th

at wi l l f ul n es s on l y appl i es to a f ai l ur e to p ay

an d n ot to re por t. The Sta te ci testo People v . Clark , 268 Il l . Ap p. 3d 81 0 (199 5). Clark involved t he fai

lur e t o pa y a fi nan ci al obl i gation, n ot a fa i l ure to report. Clark

thus addressed se ction 5--6--4(d) of t he Unifi ed Code of Co rr ect ions (Code) (730 ILCS 5/5--6- -4(d) (West 2004)), which sets forth as f

oll ows t he need f or th e S tate to prov e th

at a defendant's f

ai lure to compl

y w ith a c ondition of probation was willfu l: "Pr oba t ion, condi t io na l dis ch ar ge , pe r io dic impr iso nme nt an d s up er visio n sh all not be r ev o ke d f

o rfa ilu r e t o co mp ly wi

th c on dit ions o f a sent ence or sup er vision, whi ch impose s financial obligat ions upo n t he offen der unless su ch failu r e is du e t o his wil l f ul ref usa l to pay ." (Em

phasi s ad ded.) 7 30 IL CS 5/5 --6--4(d ) (We st 2004 ). T he prim ary

objec t ive of st at ut or y inter pr et at ion is t o d et er mine and give e ffect t o t he legislat ur e's intent , a nd t his inquiry pr op er ly begins by exam i ni ng the l an gua geof the statut e at iss

ue. Pe o ple v. Mc Ca

rty , 223 Ill . 2d 109, 124 (2006). The in terpret ation of a sta

tute p res en ts a que sti on of la w, which we rev

ie w de no vo . McC arty , 223 Il l. 2d at 124 . T he bes t indicat ion o f the legislat ur e's in

tent is the langua ge o f the sta tute , gi v en i ts pla in and ordi na ry mean i ng. Mc Ca

rty , 223 Ill . 2d at 12 4. Sec ti on 5--6--4(d) of the Code provides that t he State must es tab lish that t he o ffender 's conduct was wi

ll ful if the basi s f or t he revocati on was his f ail ure to m eet a f i na nc i al obl i gation. It does not apply

bey ond fi nan ci al obli gations. See Clark , 268 Ill . App. 3d at 813- 14 ( defend ant 's pro bation was revoked because he willfull y fail ed t o p ay co ur t -o rd er ed fines, co st s, a nd re st itu t ion;No. 2-- 05--1135

-3-

t he o pin io n d id n o t co nsid er t he failu r e t o r ep o r t )
. I n t his case, the State did not all ege that defend ant fai le d to m eet a f i n an ci al ob l i ga ti on . Rath

er , the S tate

al l eg ed th at def en da n t f ai l ed to re po rt t o t he Du Page Coun ty probati on de partm en t. Thus , we ag

ree wi th the State tha t nei ther Clark nor se cti on 5--6--4(d) appl

i es i n the i nstant ca se. Defe

ndan t h as n ot ci

ted to any ot her authority , nor has our research di sc l ose d a

ny othe r au thor i ty , th at re qui

res wi l l f ul ne ss asan el em en t of proof of a p rob ati on violat ion. We be lieve t ha t t he St at e is not required to prove wil

lf ul i ntent where an

off ender has f

ai le d to compl y w ith the c ondition of reporting to t he probation depa rtment. See People v . Jurise c , 199 I ll. 2d 10 8, 12 0- 21 ( 20 02 ) ( r ev o ca t io n d o es no t r eq ui r e c ul pa bilit y, and i ns an i ty a nd i ntoxi cation are not def en ses wi th ref eren ce to a v i ola tion ). Af ter f i ndi ng a vi ola tion , a trial court hasdiscr et ion in dec iding whet her t o r evo ke p ro bat ion, and we wi

ll not disturb the trial

court 's rul

in g unless i t is an abuse of that di scre ti on . Th

e S tate has t he bu rde n of de mon st rating, b

y a preponderance of the e

vi dence, that the defe

ndan t violated a condi ti on of his probation. 730 ILCS 5/5--6--4(c) (West 2004); see Juris ec , 199 Ill . 2d at 127 , quo t ing Peo ple v. Da vis , 12 3 I ll. App. 3d 349, 354 (198 4) (re vocation of pro bation was not an abuse of dis cretion bec ause " ' defen dant had not achi eved

an d c oul d n ot ac hi eve the p ri

nc i pal obj ec ti ve of his prob ati

on' " (e m phas i s om i tted) ). A de f en da nt’ s f ai l ure to r ep ort to h is

probation off

ic er even
once can provi

de suf fi ci ent grounds to r evoke probation. See People v. Wal sh , 273 Ill . App. 3d 453, 460 (1995 ); In re

B.R.J. , 133 Ill . App. 3d 542, 545 (1985) ("Fail ure to report to the probation off ic er al one, in t he dis cr et io n o f t he t r ial cour t, is su ffi cient gr ou nds t o r evo ke p ro bat ion") . I n add itio n, defend ant hi

ms el f testif

ie d t hat he did no t re po rt t o t he Du Pa ge Co un t y pr o ba t io n d ep ar t men t . T his is co mpet ent evidenc e t o s upp or t t he revocation of h is probation. See Pe o ple v. Hu ds on , 34 Ill . App.No. 2-- 05--1135

-4-

3d 94, 96 ( 1975) ( defendan t's admi ssi on that he fai led t o r epo rt was sufficient t o s upp or t t he
rev oca ti on of proba

tion ). Defend ant arg

ue s th at he h ad no m one y f or tra ns porta ti on f rom his r es id en ce in C o o k C o un t y. Howev er, defend ant faile d t o ex pla in why he could not secure gain

ful em ploy me nt, borro w the m

oney f ort ra nspo rt at ion, or a sk

a f rien d f or a ride to Du Page Cou n ty . F ur th er , de f en da n t f ai l ed to ex pla in why he failed t o c all the p ro bat ion d epa rt ment t o e xplain his dilemm a and ask f

or fi nan ci al assi stance,
as sugg ested

by the tri al courtupon s en

tenc i ng. Th ese are m atters that r elate to the cou rt's exercise of its d iscre t ion t o r evo ke p ro bat ion, not t o it s finding o f a violat ion. Defendan t has fai led to est abl

ish that hi s alle ged indi

gen cy i s m aterial as to wh ethe r he vi ola ted hi s prob ati on or tha

t the tri al court abused its discretion i

n revoki ng hi s probation. See Juris ec , 199 Ill . 2d at 120-21, quot in g Peo ple v. Al l egri , 109 Il

l . 2d 309 , 314-1 5 (198 5) (" ' [p ]e rs on al cul pa b i l i ty is not required f

or a cour t t o revoke
a sentence of probat ion' "). Considering def endant's f ail ure t o est abl

ish facts that indicate an abuse of di scretion, we determi

ne that no abuse of

dis cretion occurred. For the f oregoi ng rea sons, th

e j udg men t of the ci rcu i t cou rt of Du Page Cou n ty is aff irm ed. Af fi rmed. BOW MA N an d ZEN OFF , JJ., c oncu

r.