Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

In re Detention of King, 2016 IL App (1st) 150041

Appellate Court 

Caption

In re DETENTION OF JONATHAN KING (The People of the State 

of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Jonathan King, RespondentAppellant).

District & No. First District, Second Division

Docket Nos. 1-15-0041, 1-15-0645 cons.

Filed September 13, 2016

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Nos. 11-CR-800002, 

HCC-14-000201; the Hon. Thomas J. Byrne, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed.

Counsel on

Appeal

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.

Panel PRESIDING JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court, 

with opinion.

Justices Pierce and Simon concurred in the judgment and opinion.
- 2 - 

 OPINION 

¶ 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 
- 3 - 

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 

King’s motion to dismiss. On February 6, 2015, King filed a notice of appeal from the January 

28 order. 

¶ 9 On March 30, 2015, the trial court entered an order granting the State’s motion for a 

finding of no probable cause based on its review of Dr. Travis’s reexamination report. King did 

not file a notice of appeal from the March 23 order. 

¶ 10 On August 28, 2015, we consolidated King’s appeal of the order striking his petition for 

writ of habeas corpus and his appeal of the denial of his motion to dismiss. On April 8, 2016, 

King filed his brief, arguing that the trial court erred in striking his habeas corpus petition and 

in denying his motion to dismiss the State’s motion for a finding of no probable cause and 

granting the State’s motion. King asserted that this court has jurisdiction over both issues 

because his notice of appeal on the trial court’s decision to strike his habeas corpus petition 

was filed nine days after the court’s order and his February 6, 2015, notice of appeal from the 

trial court’s dismissal of his motion to dismiss constituted a timely appeal of “the finding of 

[the] no probabl[e] cause issue.”

¶ 11 The State filed a reply brief on May 11, 2016, and, on that same date, also filed a motion to 

dismiss King’s notice of appeal of the trial court’s ruling on the probable cause issue. The State 

argued that in the probable cause proceeding, King filed a notice of appeal on February 6, 

2015, after the trial court denied his motion to dismiss, which is not a final order, but before the 

trial court entered its finding of no probable cause, and thus, the appellate court lacks 

jurisdiction. King filed a reply asserting that his motion to dismiss was directed not at the 

State’s motion for a finding of no probable cause but at the August 2, 2011, order adjudicating 

him a sexually violent person, which is a final order. We agreed to take the motion with the 

case. 

¶ 12 ANALYSIS 

¶ 13 Jurisdiction Over No Probable Cause Finding 

¶ 14 The State contends King prematurely filed a notice of appeal after the trial court denied his 

motion to dismiss and did not again file a notice of appeal within 30 days following the trial 

court’s final March 30, 2015, order. We agree.
- 4 - 

¶ 15 Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303(a)(1), a party may perfect appeal by filing a notice 

of appeal “within 30 days after the entry of the final judgment appealed from, or, if a timely 

posttrial motion directed against the judgment is filed, whether in a jury or a nonjury case, 

within 30 days after the entry of the order disposing of the last pending postjudgment motion 

directed against that judgment or order.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(a)(1) (eff. Jan. 1, 2015). An appeal 

may be taken from a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims only if 

the trial court makes an express written finding of no just reason to delay either enforcement, 

appeal, or both. Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(a) (eff. Feb. 26, 2010). Without a Rule 304(a) finding, a final 

order disposing of fewer than all the claims is not appealable and does not become appealable 

until all of the claims are resolved. Marsh v. Evangelical Covenant Church of Hinsdale, 138 

Ill. 2d 458, 464 (1990). A premature notice of appeal does not confer jurisdiction on the 

appellate court. See id. at 469. 

¶ 16 King’s February 6, 2015, notice of appeal was premature as the trial court had neither ruled 

on the State’s motion for a finding of no probable cause nor made a Rule 304(a) finding. The 

denial of a motion to dismiss, itself, is not a final and appealable order but an interlocutory 

order, which does not give this court jurisdiction. Mund v. Brown, 393 Ill. App. 3d 994, 996 

(2009). Moreover, consolidation of the two appeals does not confer jurisdiction. See, e.g., 

Charles v. Gore, 248 Ill. App. 3d 441, 445 (1993) (“A consolidation does not operate to 

establish jurisdiction where there was none before.”). Because King did not file a timely notice 

of appeal, we lack jurisdiction over the trial court’s order finding no probable cause. This 

ruling does not affect this court’s ability to address King’s appeal of the trial court order 

striking his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

¶ 17 Habeas Corpus 

¶ 18 A writ of habeas corpus is “ ‘available only to obtain the release of a prisoner who has been 

incarcerated under a judgment of a court that lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter or the 

person of the petitioner, or where there has been some occurrence subsequent to the prisoner’s 

conviction [that] entitle[s] him [or her] to release.’ ”Hennings v. Chandler, 229 Ill. 2d 18, 30 

(2008) (quoting Barney v. Prisoner Review Board, 184 Ill. 2d 428, 430 (1998)). We review 

dismissal of a habeas corpus petition de novo. Id. at 24. 

¶ 19 King contends that a postconviction occurrence, namely, the State’s failure to timely file a 

reexamination report within 12 months after his last reexamination report (required under 725 

ILCS 207/55(a) (West 2014)), confers a basis for granting him immediate release, and thus, the 

trial court erred in striking his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We disagree. Under the Act 

a person is entitled to discharge from Department custody only after a court finding that he or 

she is no longer a sexually violent person. Specifically, section 40(a) of the Act states that a 

person committed as 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.” (Emphasis added.) 725 ILCS 207/40(a) (West 2014). Section 65 of the Act 

lays out the procedures for obtaining an order of discharge. Specifically, section 65 provides, 

in part, that “[i]f the Secretary determines at any time that a person committed under this Act is 

no longer a sexually violent person, the Secretary shall authorize the person to petition the 

committing court for discharge.” 725 ILCS 207/65(a)(1) (West 2014). Section 65 further 

provides that once the Department’s evaluator opines that the committed person is no longer a 

sexually violent person, the Secretary or designee has 30 days from receipt of the evaluator’s 
- 5 - 

report to “file with the committing court notice of his or her determination whether or not to 

authorize the committed person to petition the committing court for discharge.” Id. A 

petitioner will be discharged from the custody or supervision of the Department where the 

State fails to meet its burden of proving a petitioner to be a sexually violent person. 725 ILCS 

207/65(a)(3) (West 2014). 

¶ 20 Dr. Travis 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 the reexamination report was filed more than 12 months after 

the previous reexamination report, the delay is not grounds for discharge under the Act. King 

will be released only when he has been found to no longer be a sexually violent person. King 

has not shown nor has he offered any evidence that he is no longer a sexually violent person. 

Thus, because he has no grounds for immediate release from detention under the Act, the trial 

court did not err in striking his habeas corpus petition. See Barney v. Prisoner Review Board, 

184 Ill. 2d 428, 431 (1998) (“Habeas corpus does not lie if the person is in custody by virtue of 

a final judgment of any circuit court, or of any proceeding for the enforcement of such 

judgment, unless the time during which such party may be legally detained has expired.”). 

¶ 21 Moreover, although the Act requires an annual reexamination report, it does not mandate 

discharge if the State fails to do so or it files late. Whether a statutory command is mandatory 

or directory poses a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. People v. 

Robinson, 217 Ill. 2d 43, 54 (2005). “[T]he mandatory-directory dichotomy *** concerns the 

consequences of a failure to fulfill an obligation.” Id. at 52. It “ ‘denotes whether the failure to 

comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the 

governmental action to which the procedural requirement relates.’ ” Id. at 51-52 (quoting 

Morris v. County of Marin, 559 P.2d 606, 611 (Cal. 1977)). To be mandatory, the legislature 

must have dictated a particular consequence for failure to comply with the provision. Pullen v. 

Mulligan, 138 Ill. 2d 21, 46 (1990). Otherwise, the statute is directory, “and no particular 

consequence flows from noncompliance.” People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d 507, 515 (2009). 

Under the mandatory/directory dichotomy, language issuing a procedural command to a 

government official presupposes intent that the statute is directory. This presumption can be 

overcome where (1) negative language prohibits further action in the case of noncompliance or 

(2) the right the provision is designed to protect would generally be injured under a directory 

reading. Id. at 517. 

¶ 22 Section 55 provides that the Department “shall submit a written report to the court on his or 

her mental condition at least once every 12 months.” This is directory. The Act has no negative 

language prohibiting further action in the event the State does not comply. Further, the right to 

annual reexamination as a method for obtaining discharge is not injured by a filing delay 

because the Act provides alternative methods to petition for discharge. A petitioner may seek 

other remedies, including a show-cause order or a mandamus action under section 14-101 of 

the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/14-101 et seq. (West 2014)), compelling the 

Department to file the report. Thus, King was not entitled to immediate release and the trial 

court correctly dismissed his petition. 

¶ 23 Affirmed.