Opinion ID: 2206175
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Fulfill the Conditions of Release

Text: In the case at bar, the circuit court found that defendant failed to fulfill a condition of his release because defendant was not taking the medication Depo Provera. Initially, defendant takes the position that this finding was error because the actual condition of [his] release was that he not voluntarily stop taking Depo Provera. Defendant contends he could have violated this condition of his release only if he unilaterally refused, ceased, or stopped taking Depo Provera. In this case, however, the evidence presented at the hearing showed that he did not voluntarily cease taking Depo Provera. Thus, defendant contends, the trial court erred when it found that he violated this condition. We disagree. Defendant's interpretation of the court's conditional release is too narrow. After examining the record and the written order granting the conditional release, we are convinced that defendant's voluntary compliance with the medication order was never a condition of his release. The court's written release order plainly states, [The defendant] is to be conditionally released from the custody of [the Department] upon condition that Defendant    takes Depo Provera. Although the court admonished defendant that he could not refuse to take Depo Provera, we do not interpret the court's comments as evidence that the court intended to make defendant's voluntary compliance a condition of the release. Rather, the record before us indicates that the admonishments were made because the circuit court was aware that defendant had previously been granted a conditional release and, due to health concerns, had chosen to stop taking Depo Provera. Thereafter, defendant had a recurrence of pedophilic behavior. Thus, contrary to defendant's assertion, we find that the court, by advising defendant that he could not refuse to take Depo Provera, was placing defendant on notice that his continued use of Depo Provera was a condition of his release which he could not unilaterally choose to ignore. In an alternative argument, defendant contends that, even if his continued use of Depo Provera was a condition of his release, his lack of culpability for the failure to take Depo Provera should have precluded a finding that he failed to fulfill the conditions of his release. He argues that the appellate court erred when it applied the rationale employed in probation revocation cases to determine that nonculpable conduct can form the basis for a finding that an insanity acquittee failed to fulfill the conditions of a release. We, however, agree with the appellate court below that a court may find that an insanity acquittee has failed to fulfill the conditions of a release even if the insanity acquittee bears no personal responsibility for the violation. In reaching this determination, we, like the appellate court, find it appropriate to look to probation revocation cases for guidance. It has been determined that [p]ersonal culpability is not required for a court to revoke a sentence of probation ( People v. Allegri, 109 Ill.2d 309, 314-15, 93 Ill.Dec. 781, 487 N.E.2d 606 (1985) (insanity defense not cognizable at a probation revocation proceeding); People v. Cooper, 146 Ill.App.3d 596, 100 Ill.Dec. 277, 497 N.E.2d 157 (1986) (intoxication defense unavailable at probation revocation proceedings)), because a sentence of probation has as its core purposes the rehabilitation of the offender and the protection of the public and, [w]hen the varied purposes of probation are fully considered, it becomes readily apparent that nonculpable conduct on the part of the probationer may frustrate the goals of a probationary sentence ( People v. Davis, 123 Ill.App.3d 349, 353, 78 Ill.Dec. 705, 462 N.E.2d 824 (1984) (unavailability of a drug- and alcohol-treatment program that would accept defendant was a violation of the probation order which justified revocation)). Similarly, when an insanity acquittee is granted a conditional release, the court imposes terms which it deems necessary to reasonably assure the defendant's satisfactory progress in treatment or habilitation and the safety of the defendant and others. 730 ILCS 5/5-2-4(a)(1)(D) (West 1998). The goals of a conditional release, like the goals of probation, may be frustrated when the conditions are not being fulfilled, even if the insanity acquittee bears no personal culpability for the failure. In the present case, the trial court granted defendant a release from the custody of the Department and made his continued use of Depo Provera a condition of his release. The record shows that this condition was included because medical testimony linked defendant's treatment with Depo Provera to his continued progress and the safety of the public. Thus, discontinuing use of the medication could have a deleterious effect on the goals of defendant's release. We conclude, therefore, that the unequivocal evidence that defendant was not taking Depo Provera, despite the lack of willful or volitional misconduct on defendant's part, was proof that the conditions of defendant's release were not being fulfilled. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's finding that defendant's use of Depo Provera was a condition of his release which was not being fulfilled at the time of the court hearing on the State's petition. By affirming the circuit court's finding that defendant was not fulfilling the conditions of his release, however, our inquiry does not come to a close. We must further consider whether the circuit court's decision to revoke defendant's release was made in accord with statutory procedures. Revocation of the Conditional Release Paragraph (i) of section 5-2-4 states in pertinent part: (i) If within the period of the defendant's conditional release, the Court determines, after hearing evidence, that the defendant has not fulfilled the conditions of release, the Court shall order a hearing to be held consistent with the provisions of paragraph (f) and (g) of this Section. At such hearing, if the Court finds that the defendant is subject to involuntary admission or in need of mental health services on an inpatient basis, it shall enter an order remanding him or her to the Department of Human Services or other facility. 730 ILCS 5/5-2-4(i) (West 1998). The plain language of section 5-2-4(i) instructs that a finding that an insanity acquittee has not fulfilled the conditions of release is simply the first step in the inquiry to determine whether a conditional release should be terminated. Pursuant to the language of the statute, revocation of a conditional release does not follow automatically upon a finding that there has been a failure to fulfill a condition of the release. 730 ILCS 5/5-2-4(i) (West 1998). That is to say, failure to fulfill a condition of release is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for a finding that defendant is subject to involuntary recommitment. People v. Hager, 253 Ill.App.3d 37, 42, 192 Ill.Dec. 272, 625 N.E.2d 232 (1993). Rather, once a threshold finding that a condition has not been fulfilled is made, a hearing must be held, consistent with the provisions of paragraphs (f) and (g) of section 5-2-4, at which time the court must determine whether the insanity acquittee is subject to involuntary admission or in need of mental health services on an inpatient basis. 730 ILCS 5/5-2-4(i) (West 1998). This standard, then, is the touchstone for any commitment of an insanity acquittee, whether initial or otherwise. When deciding whether an insanity acquittee is subject to involuntary admission or in need of mental health services on an inpatient basis, courts have long held that the determination must be based upon explicit medical opinion regarding the defendant's future conduct and cannot be based upon a mere finding of mental illness. People v. Robin, 312 Ill.App.3d 710, 245 Ill.Dec. 654, 728 N.E.2d 736 (2000); People v. Grant, 295 Ill.App.3d 750, 230 Ill.Dec. 129, 692 N.E.2d 1295 (1998); People v. Washington, 167 Ill. App.3d 73, 117 Ill.Dec. 809, 520 N.E.2d 1160 (1988); People v. Smith, 126 Ill. App.3d 5, 9, 81 Ill.Dec. 424, 466 N.E.2d 1226 (1984). See also In re Stephenson, 67 Ill.2d 544, 10 Ill.Dec. 507, 367 N.E.2d 1273 (1977) (civil commitment must be based on clear and convincing evidence, including medical testimony). Indeed, it has been recognized that decisions which place a restraint on an insanity acquittee's liberty may violate substantive due process unless they are grounded on professional judgment, guided and informed by `normal professional standards.' Lucas v. Peters, 318 Ill.App.3d 1, 14, 251 Ill.Dec. 719, 741 N.E.2d 313 (2000), citing Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982). It has been held that an order of involuntary commitment meets statutory requirements only when the evidence, based on a current evaluation of defendant's conduct and state of mind, clearly establishes the need for inpatient care. Hager, 253 Ill.App.3d at 41, 192 Ill.Dec. 272, 625 N.E.2d 232; see also Washington, 167 Ill.App.3d at 79, 117 Ill. Dec. 809, 520 N.E.2d 1160, quoting People v. Bradley, 22 Ill.App.3d 1076, 1084, 318 N.E.2d 267 (1974) (order of involuntary commitment requires `fresh evaluation' of individual's conduct and state of mind). Under section 5-2-4(i) of the Code, then, once it is shown that the insanity acquittee has failed to fulfill the terms of a conditional release, the court must conduct a hearing to reconsider the grant of conditional release and determine whether, in light of expert testimony on defendant's current mental status, there is clear and convincing evidence that defendant's involuntary readmission to the Department is required or whether the conditional release should be continued, with or without modification of the conditions of the original release. 730 ILCS 5/5-2-4(i) (West 1998). These procedures are not precatory. As this court noted in Radazewski v. Cawley, 159 Ill.2d 372, 378, 203 Ill.Dec. 102, 639 N.E.2d 141 (1994): It is well settled that detention of an individual at a mental health care facility implicates a substantial liberty interest. (See Foucha v. Louisiana (1992), 504 U.S. 71, 112 S.Ct. 1780, 118 L.Ed.2d 437; Jones v. United States (1983), 463 U.S. 354, 103 S.Ct. 3043, 77 L.Ed.2d 694; In re Robinson (1992), 151 Ill.2d 126 [176 Ill.Dec. 14, 601 N.E.2d 712]; In re Splett (1991), 143 Ill.2d 225 [157 Ill.Dec. 419, 572 N.E.2d 883]; People v. Lang (1986), 113 Ill.2d 407 [101 Ill.Dec. 597, 498 N.E.2d 1105]; In re Stephenson (1977), 67 Ill.2d 544 [10 Ill.Dec. 507, 367 N.E.2d 1273].) Statutes involving involuntary admission procedures are therefore construed narrowly unless such a construction would require `the performance of an empty formality.' ( In re Splett, 143 Ill.2d at 232 [157 Ill.Dec. 419, 572 N.E.2d 883]; see also Estate of Johnson v. Condell Memorial Hospital (1988), 119 Ill.2d 496, 507 [117 Ill.Dec. 47, 520 N.E.2d 37].)    A hearing to vindicate the liberty interest of insanity acquittees is not an empty formality. Examining the record in the case at bar, it is clear that the circuit court's decision to revoke defendant's conditional release was not made in conformity with the statutory procedures mandated by section 5-2-4 of the Code. There was only one hearing at which the State presented any evidence. The evidence that was entered established that defendant was not taking Depo Provera as required by the court's conditional release order. Based on that evidence alone, the circuit court revoked defendant's conditional release and held that defendant was subject to involuntary admission and in need of inpatient care. Thus, the court presumed, without any evidence, that without Depo Provera defendant was subject to being involuntarily committed to the custody of the Department. This was error. The court's decision to revoke the release and recommit defendant was not grounded on clear and convincing evidence that defendant was subject to involuntary admission or in need of mental health services on an inpatient basis. There was no clear and convincing evidence that, under the circumstances at the time of the hearing, defendant was mentally ill and, because of his mental illness, reasonably expected to inflict serious physical harm upon himself or another in the near future, or unable to provide for his basic physical needs so as to guard himself from serious harm (730 ILCS 5/5-2-4(a)(1)(A) (West 1998)) or, though not subject to involuntary admission, reasonably expected to inflict serious physical harm upon himself or another and, as a result, would benefit from inpatient care or is in need of inpatient care (730 ILCS 5/5-2-4(a)(1)(B) (West 1998)). These are determinations that cannot be made without the benefit of a current medical evaluation of defendant's mental status. Because the circuit court had before it no evidence regarding defendant's mental condition at the time of the hearing, the decision does not meet the clear and convincing standard and cannot be sustained. We recognize that the court was aware that in 1996, when defendant's conditional release was granted, defendant's continuation on Depo Provera was instrumental to his treatment and release. However, the court's reliance on that evidence to support defendant's involuntary recommitment is misplaced. The hearing in this matter took place in 1998, two years after defendant was granted the release conditioned on his use of Depo Provera. There was no evidence presented to the court that, at the time of this hearing, defendant's mental condition could not be successfully treated on an outpatient basis without Depo Provera. Nor was there any way that the court could assess whether defendant's treatment with a substitute medication was adequate to protect him and others from possible dangers stemming from defendant's mental condition. In short, without medical testimony regarding defendant's mental status at the time of the hearing, the circuit court could not accurately determine defendant's present need for recommitment and inpatient care or his eligibility for continued conditional release. For this reason, the court's findings that, without Depo Provera, defendant presented a danger to the public and was subject to involuntary admission or in need of in patient care were unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. There is an additional reason why the circuit court's decision to revoke defendant's conditional release was not made in conformity with the statutory procedures mandated by section 5-2-4(i) of the Code. According to this provision, after a court finds that an insanity acquittee has not fulfilled the conditions of a release, the court may revoke the release and recommit the defendant to the custody of the Department if defendant meets the criteria for involuntary admission, or it may continue the conditional release and, if necessary, modify the conditions of the original release in order to reasonably assure the defendant's satisfactory progress in treatment and his    safety and the safety of others. 730 ILCS 5/5-2-4(i) (West 1998). This procedure is similar to the scheme used in deciding whether to grant a probation revocation petition. Paragraph (e) of section 5-6-4 of the Unified Code of Corrections states: If the court finds that the offender has violated a condition at any time prior to the expiration or termination of the period, it may continue him on the existing sentence, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions, or may impose any other sentence that was available under Section 5-5-3 at the time of initial sentencing. 730 ILCS 5/5-6-4(e) (West 1998). Due to this similarity, we, once again, consult probation revocation cases for guidance in interpreting section 5-2-4(i) and determining whether the circuit court's decision to revoke defendant's conditional release was proper. In People v. Davis, 123 Ill.App.3d 349, 78 Ill.Dec. 705, 462 N.E.2d 824 (1984), the circuit court had revoked a defendant's sentence of probation, which was conditioned on his securing inpatient treatment for drug- and alcohol-dependency problems, when evidence presented at the revocation hearing established that there were no treatment facilities in the state willing to accept the defendant for inpatient treatment. On review, it was found that the court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendant's probation because defendant had not achieved and could not achieve the principal objective of his probation. (Emphasis added.) Davis, 123 Ill.App.3d at 354, 78 Ill.Dec. 705, 462 N.E.2d 824. Similarly, in People v. Welch, 78 Ill. App.3d 184, 33 Ill.Dec. 761, 397 N.E.2d 94 (1979), the defendant's probation was conditioned on his treatment at the Illinois Psychiatric Institute and it was unequivocally established at the revocation hearing that defendant was not receiving treatment. Nevertheless, the reviewing court reversed the order revoking defendant's release because the evidence did not establish that the goal of the probation order could not be achieved. This is because defendant testified that he had been turned away by the receptionist at the Psychiatric Institute and, after informing his probation officer of the situation, received no assistance in making treatment arrangements he required. On review, the court said, [W]ithout attempting to fix blame, it appears to us that the sole objective at this time should be to attempt to remedy the situation and to obtain the needed treatment for defendant. Welch, 78 Ill.App.3d at 187, 33 Ill.Dec. 761, 397 N.E.2d 94. Applying the rationale of Davis and Welch to the present case, we find that the circuit court's decision to revoke defendant's conditional release did not meet the clear and convincing standard because the evidence relied on by the circuit court failed to establish that terms of defendant's conditional release could not be achieved. Defendant testified that he was willing to take Depo Provera, but that he had been prevented from doing so by prison authorities. Defendant further testified that he had gone as far as obtaining court orders which demanded that prison authorities administer Depo Provera to him. These court orders were ignored, apparently because of liability concerns stemming from the fact that Depo Provera was not FDA approved. The circuit court made no factual determination regarding the legitimacy of the prison authorities' liability concerns, nor did it attempt to remedy the situation. In sum, the court never determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that the condition of defendant's release, i.e., treatment with Depo Provera, could not be achieved. We conclude, then, that the statutory clear and convincing standard was not met in the case at bar for two reasons. First, the court failed to determine, based on expert medical testimony, that defendant's use of Depo Provera, to the exclusion of other medications, was necessary to reasonably assure his satisfactory progress in treatment on an outpatient basis and his safety and the safety of others. For that reason, the circuit court's determination that defendant was subject to involuntary admission and in need of inpatient care was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Second, in light of defendant's testimony that he was being prevented from fulfilling the condition of his release, the circuit court had an obligation to determine whether the condition could be achieved, that is, it had to determine whether Depo Provera could be made available to defendant. Because the court did not address this matter, its decision to revoke defendant's conditional release and remand him to the custody of the Department did not satisfy the clear and convincing standard. `The primary objective of section 5-2-4 is to insure that insanity acquittees are not indeterminately institutionalized' ( Turner v. Campagna, 281 Ill.App.3d 1090, 1094, 217 Ill.Dec. 594, 667 N.E.2d 683 (1996), quoting People v. Winston, 191 Ill. App.3d 948, 959, 139 Ill.Dec. 21, 548 N.E.2d 406 (1989)), and that the intrusion on liberty interests is kept at a minimum. We conclude that, in the present case, the circuit court failed to comply with the procedures and standards required by section 5-2-4 of the Code. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's failure to fulfill the conditions of his releasehis failure to take Depo Provera-did not provide the circuit court with clear and convincing evidence that defendant was subject to involuntary admission or in need of inpatient care. Nor was there clear and convincing evidence that defendant could not be maintained on an outpatient basis. Because the statutory procedures mandated by section 5-2-4 were not followed, the circuit court erred when it revoked defendant's conditional release. Defendant makes the additional argument that his due process rights were violated because the circuit court revoked his conditional release without taking into consideration the State's culpability for his failure to fulfill the conditions of his release. We acknowledge that there is a substantive component to the notion of due process which bars arbitrary, wrongful governmental action. Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80, 112 S.Ct. 1780, 1785, 118 L.Ed.2d 437, 448 (1992). However, because we find that the circuit court's decision to revoke defendant's conditional release was not based on clear and convincing evidence and, therefore, did not meet the standard of proof required by statute, we need not consider whether the court's decision to revoke also violated due process.