Court Opinion

ID: 9955667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 21:04:06.219778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:14.465037
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (1st) 230028-U
                                                                              FIRST DISTRICT,
                                                                              FIRST DIVISION
                                                                              March 28, 2024

                                             No. 1-23-0028

     NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
     limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
     _____________________________________________________________________________

                                         IN THE
                             APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
     _____________________________________________________________________________

      IN RE THE COMMITMENT OF VINCENT               )
      PIERONI                                       )     Appeal from the
                                                    )     Circuit Court of
      (People of the State of Illinois,             )     Cook County, Illinois.
                                                    )
                             Petitioner-Appellee,   )     No. 05 CR 80008
      v.                                            )
                                                    )     Honorable
      Vincent Pieroni,                              )     Arthur Willis,
                                                    )     Judge Presiding.
                             Respondent-Appellant). )
     _____________________________________________________________________________

            JUSTICE COGHLAN delivered the judgment of the court.
            Presiding Justice Fitzgerald Smith and Justice Lavin concurred in the judgment.

                                                ORDER

¶1          Held: Evidence was sufficient to prove that respondent remains a sexually violent person
                  as defined in the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act and has not made
                  sufficient progress in treatment to be conditionally released.

¶2          In March 2006, respondent Vincent Pieroni was found to be a Sexually Violent Person

     (SVP) pursuant to the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (725 ILCS 207/1 et seq. (West

     2004)) (SVP Act) and committed to the custody of the Department of Human Services (DHS). In
     No. 1-23-0028

     2022, the trial court denied respondent’s petition for conditional release, finding that the State

     proved by clear and convincing evidence that respondent is still an SVP and has not made

     sufficient progress in treatment so that he is no longer substantially probable to engage in acts of

     sexual violence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶3                                            BACKGROUND

¶4          In 2006, respondent stipulated that he was an SVP under the SVP Act based on multiple

     prior convictions for sexually violent offenses and an expert psychologist’s opinion that he had a

     mental disorder that made him substantially probable to engage in future acts of sexual violence.

     See In re Commitment of Pieroni, 2020 IL App (1st) 190985-U, ¶¶ 4-13 (Pieroni I). The circuit

     court entered a judgment that respondent was an SVP and committed him to the DHS. Id. ¶¶ 2,

     14.

¶5          In 2017, respondent petitioned the circuit court for conditional release (CR), attaching a

     report from Dr. Brian Abbott, who opined that respondent no longer suffers from a qualifying

     mental disorder and is not substantially probable to reoffend. On January 17, 2019, the circuit

     court found no probable cause to warrant an evidentiary hearing on whether respondent was still

     an SVP and no probable cause to warrant a hearing on respondent’s petition for CR. Id. ¶ 32. We

     reversed, finding that respondent “has presented at least some plausible evidence of changed

     circumstances from the time he initially stipulated to the SVP designation in March 2006” (id. ¶

     46) and was therefore entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

¶6          On remand, with the parties’ agreement, the circuit court held a hearing on May 19, 2022

     to determine both whether respondent remained an SVP and, if so, whether he was entitled to

     CR. The State presented testimony from Dr. Kimberly Weitl, and respondent presented

                                                      -2-
       No. 1-23-0028

       testimony from Abbott. Both experts had previously prepared reports that were admitted into

       evidence at the hearing.

¶7                                             Weitl’s Testimony

¶8            Weitl, a forensic psychologist employed by DHS, was assigned to respondent’s case in

       2012. She opined that respondent continued to suffer from a mental disorder that made him

       substantially probable to reoffend and had not made sufficient progress in treatment to be

       conditionally released. Her opinion was based on records of respondent’s criminal, treatment,

       medical, and behavioral history, his prior SVP evaluations, and a 2017 interview with

       respondent, which was the only time he agreed to speak with her. She did not interview or

       communicate with him in 2021 because of a facility-wide quarantine due to the COVID-19

       pandemic.

¶9            Regarding respondent’s criminal history, Weitl testified that in 1987, respondent

       committed, and was later convicted of, acts of sexual violence against two boys whom he was

       babysitting: he anally raped an 8-year-old, and, on a separate occasion, he fondled the penis of a

       10-year-old. Respondent was released on parole in 1990 and committed (and was convicted of)

       another act of sexual abuse in 1992, which indicated to Weitl that “his deviant sexual urges were

       such that he could not maintain himself while on supervised release.”

¶ 10          In 1993, while on probation for the 1992 offense, respondent committed (and later

       pleaded guilty to) sexually violent offenses against four boys. Specifically, he fondled a 13-year-

       old boy’s penis on 20 separate occasions and threatened to shoot him if he reported the abuse.

       Respondent also anally raped another 13-year-old boy, using force. On another occasion, he

       persuaded a 12-year-old boy to spend the night in his home and fondled the boy’s penis while the

       boy slept. He also threatened to hurt both of these boys if they reported the incidents. Finally,

                                                        -3-
       No. 1-23-0028

       respondent sexually abused a 16-year-old boy on several occasions by rubbing his penis between

       the boy’s legs and by persuading the boy to penetrate respondent’s anus with the boy’s penis.

¶ 11           Weitl further testified that respondent had a history of substance abuse “with his drug of

       choice being cocaine,” and he acknowledged being under the influence when committing some

       of his offenses, which she identified as a risk factor for reoffending. In addition, respondent had

       “a long history of mental illness”: he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, had been hospitalized

       twice for psychiatric treatment, and had been prescribed psychotropic medications for “most of

       his life.”

¶ 12           Weitl also considered respondent’s behavior while in custody. Since December 2005,

       respondent has been detained at a DHS facility “designed for sexually violent persons that

       provides him with secure care and sex offender treatment.” At the facility, respondent has

       committed multiple disciplinary infractions, including possession of pornography depicting

       violent sex scenes, but “[h]is most recent [infraction] was in 2017. So for the last several years

       he has been okay.”

¶ 13           Detainees at the DHS facility are given access to a five-step treatment program consisting

       of (1) treatment readiness, (2) disclosure, (3) analysis, (4) developing a relapse prevention plan

       and wellness plan, and (5) CR readiness. According to Weitl, respondent has not completed step

       one and has declined to begin step two, which Weitl characterized as “when they actually begin

       treatment.” A phase two treatment group consists of approximately ten men who discuss their

       prior offenses in detail, including victim types and specific types of penetration. In his 2017

       interview with Weitl, respondent stated that he has not moved to phase two out of concern “that

       he might not understand the treatment concepts and that *** he might need a specialized group.”

                                                        -4-
       No. 1-23-0028

¶ 14           Weitl acknowledged that, according to Abbott’s 2021 report, respondent is not

       participating in sex offender treatment because he has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due

       to past sexual abuse by his brother. Respondent never said as much to Weitl; if he had, Weitl

       would have suggested that he tell his treatment team, since “[a] lot of the men” at the facility

       “have trauma backgrounds” and the treatment program is “designed with that in mind.” On

       cross-examination, Weitl admitted that hearing fellow detainees’ descriptions of their sexual

       offenses could trigger someone who had been sexually abused. She nevertheless opined that

       respondent’s past trauma did not mean he should not participate in sex offender treatment,

       “because that issue is going to stay unresolved if he doesn’t get into treatment and work through

       that stuff.”

¶ 15           The DHS facility also provides “ancillary groups,” of which respondent has completed a

       wide selection, including dialectical behavior therapy, act mindfulness, healthy relationships,

       decision-making models, and good lives exploration. Weitl testified that these groups are not part

       of sex offender treatment “[b]ecause [participants] are not required to process their sex offending

       behavior in those groups. *** [F]or the most part they are dealing with a different behavior,

       anger, whatever else the issue is being discussed.”

¶ 16           Weitl diagnosed respondent with pedophilic disorder, defined as attraction to

       prepubescent children that is “demonstrated in recurrent, sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or

       behaviors involving children age 13 or younger,” and “other specified paraphilic disorder” in that

       he is sexually attracted to nonconsenting males between 14 and 16. She characterized these as

       “chronic lifelong disorders” that are unlikely to resolve without treatment: “Similar to any sexual

       interest, they don’t go away. *** They can become less intense, but the interest in children won’t

       go away.” These conditions impact respondent’s ability to control his sexually violent behaviors

                                                       -5-
       No. 1-23-0028

       because “[t]he urges are to such a degree that even with legal and treatment interventions he

       continued to engage in that behavior.”

¶ 17          Weitl conducted a risk assessment of respondent using the Static-99R which is “the most

       commonly used sex offender risk assessment tool in the world.” Respondent scored in the 79th

       percentile, placing him in the “above-average risk category” for being charged with or convicted

       of another sexual offense, although she did not know the base recidivism rate and did not

       consider it important.

¶ 18          Weitl also considered “empirical risk factors” that are not included in the Static-99R. In

       aggravation, she stated that respondent had a history of substance abuse and employment

       instability; he has deviant sexual interests; he has intimacy deficits, i.e., due to lack of intimacy

       with same-age adults, he “is getting his needs met through children”; he has multiple paraphilic

       disorders, giving him a larger victim pool; he is “not motivated for treatment”; he has difficulty

       managing his emotions; and he has demonstrated a lack of success with conditional release by

       reoffending while on probation and on parole. She acknowledged that the lack of intimacy and

       employment instability were “historical” and that respondent no longer had a substance abuse

       disorder.

¶ 19          Weitl did not find any protective factors applied to respondent. She did not consider

       respondent’s age of 55 to reduce his risk of reoffending because “especially with child victims,

       *** the decrease does not start occurring until after 60.” Additionally, she did not consider his

       participation in ancillary groups to reduce his risk “[b]ecause he is not dealing with his sex

       offending behavior.”

¶ 20          Based on the foregoing factors, Weitl opined that respondent was “substantially probable,

       or much more likely than not, to commit another act of sexual violence if not confined.” She did

                                                         -6-
       No. 1-23-0028

       not recommend him for CR. To make such a recommendation, she would need to see “[t]hat he

       was genuinely and actively involved in core or sex offender specific treatment and that he had

       progressed to a point where [she] believe[d] it mitigated his risk. Or it could even change his

       status as an SVP if he is making sufficient progress.”

¶ 21                                           Abbott’s Testimony

¶ 22          Abbott, a licensed clinical psychologist, is a private practitioner who conducts

       psychological evaluations of individuals in criminal and civil litigation. He evaluated respondent

       in 2016 and in 2021 and both times opined to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty that

       respondent was no longer an SVP. He further opined that, even if respondent was still an SVP,

       he had made sufficient progress in treatment that he was no longer substantially probable to

       engage in sexual violence if conditionally released. He based these opinions on clinical

       interviews with respondent in 2016 (in person) and in 2021 (remotely due to the COVID-19

       pandemic), as well as respondent’s criminal history and his medical, clinical, and treatment

       records while in detention.

¶ 23          Abbott testified that respondent is currently in phase two of sex offender treatment, as

       reflected in his master treatment plan records from 2019 and 2020, although he has stopped

       participating due to his PTSD. His treatment records make “regular mention” of his PTSD and

       the fact that “participating in the disclosure group and hearing other offenders talking about their

       sexual offense history *** would trigger strong emotional reactions and intrusive recollections

       about his past sexual victimization.”

¶ 24          Respondent has completed multiple ancillary groups, including dialectical behavioral

       training, “a type of cognitive therapy that helps individuals understand their emotions better and

       learn to manage their emotions effectively.” As a result, respondent has “improved emotional

                                                       -7-
       No. 1-23-0028

       and behavioral control.” He has learned to manage his symptoms of PTSD, understand what led

       him to commit his sexual offenses, and develop “a good capacity for empathy towards his

       victims” that he lacked when he committed the offenses. Respondent’s medication is “an integral

       part of his sex offender treatment”: he is taking mood-stabilizing medication, antidepressants,

       and medication for behavioral control.

¶ 25          Abbott opined that respondent no longer suffers from pedophilic disorder. Although the

       DSM-5, published in 2013, classifies pedophilic disorder as a lifelong condition, Abbott cited

       studies from 2015 and 2018 indicating that not everyone experiences it as lifelong. Those with

       lifetime pedophilic disorder display “sexual offense analog behaviors” while in custody (e.g.,

       keeping cutout photos of children, establishing relationships with immature-looking detainees)—

       which respondent has not done.

¶ 26          According to Abbott, respondent’s pedophilic disorder was linked to his PTSD: he

       “cope[d] with [his] sexual victimization by sexually abusing others.” Due to dialectical behavior

       therapy, he has learned to manage his symptoms of PTSD and is “no longer having the types of

       strong emotional reactions that precipitated sexual fantasizing towards children.” Additionally,

       he has developed “a strong sense of empathy for the victims that he sexually abused” and “a

       psychological connection between how he felt as a victim of childhood sexual abuse and how his

       victims felt when he sexually abused them.” As a result, thinking about his victims no longer

       evokes arousal but “disgust and distress.” Respondent also displays “age-related improvement in

       reasoning, judgment, and impulse control.”

¶ 27          Abbott also opined that respondent’s sexual urges were no longer “affecting his

       emotional or volitional capacity in a way that predisposes him to *** acts of sexual violence.”

       Individuals in custody who have serious difficulty controlling sexually violent behavior will

                                                       -8-
       No. 1-23-0028

       repeatedly display sexual offense analog behavior despite sanctions. Such behavior was not

       present in respondent’s record. Although he had received a disciplinary ticket for possession of

       pornography approximately six years prior, Abbott did not consider it indicative of current

       difficulty in controlling sexual behavior.

¶ 28          Abbott conducted a risk assessment of respondent using the Static 99-R and the Stable-

       2007, a standardized actuarial instrument that includes “dynamic risk factors” and “accounts for

       more sources of sexual recidivism risk than the Static-99R alone.” He gave respondent the same

       Static-99R score as did Weitl, which he said corresponded to a five-year recidivism rate of 9.2%,

       although adjusting for respondent’s age gave a “more accurate” rate of 12.9%.

¶ 29          The Stable-2007 “consists of 13 items that *** have some statistical relationship with

       sexual recidivism”: significant social influences, relationship stability, emotional identification

       with children, hostility towards women, general social rejection, lack of concern for others,

       impulsive acts, poor problem-solving skills, negative emotionality, sex drive/preoccupation, sex

       as coping, deviant sex preferences, and cooperation with supervision. In 2016, respondent scored

       a seven, placing him in the moderate risk category. In 2021, he scored a four, placing him in the

       lowest risk category. Adjusting for the Stable-2007 score, Abbott estimated respondent’s five-

       year recidivism rate at 7.5%.

¶ 30          Taking the foregoing into account, Abbott recommended respondent for discharge or, in

       the alternative, CR. He opined that respondent was not substantially probable to engage in sexual

       violence if released. He further stated that CR would help respondent to get the care he needed,

       since releasees have mandatory group and individual therapy, the latter of which is “of

       paramount importance” to respondent since it would allow him to participate without triggering

       symptoms of PTSD.

                                                        -9-
       No. 1-23-0028

¶ 31                                                Decision

¶ 32          Following arguments by counsel, the trial court found that respondent was still an SVP,

       stating that “Dr. Weitl testified clearly and credibly” that respondent suffers from “paraphilic

       disorder and other specified paraphilic disorder” based on respondent’s “history and the pattern

       of his behavior over six years.” The court additionally denied CR based on respondent’s failure

       to complete sex offender treatment while in custody. Although the court acknowledged that

       “[t]he plain language of the statute does not specify sex offender treatment,” it was persuaded by

       the State’s argument “that he’s made a choice as to what treatment programs he wishes to engage

       in and *** that he’s not engaging in the hard work of the specific sex offender treatment that is

       needed to allow him to progress to the point where he can be conditionally released.” The court

       concluded: “This Court cannot and will not state that an individual who has not gone through any

       sex offender treatment is ready for conditional release. I concur with Dr. Weitl.”

¶ 33          On denial of respondent’s motion for reconsideration, the court clarified its decision,

       acknowledging that respondent has completed “a number of other treatment programs” but

       finding them “not sufficient” to qualify respondent for conditional release. The court further

       considered that respondent “had issues which stopped him from being able to engage in

       treatment,” but “those issues needed to be addressed *** in order for him to reach the next step

       [in treatment].”

¶ 34                                              ANALYSIS

¶ 35          Civil commitment is not constitutionally permissible without a showing that an individual

       has serious difficulty controlling sexually violent behavior. Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 413

       (2002). At a discharge trial, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence

       that the respondent is still an SVP (725 ILCS 207/65(2) (West 2020)), which requires that the

                                                       -10-
       No. 1-23-0028

       individual (1) has a qualifying criminal conviction and (2) has a mental disorder (3) that makes

       him substantially probable to engage in acts of sexual violence (725 ILCS 207/15(b) (West

       2020)). At a conditional release hearing, the State has the burden of proving by clear and

       convincing evidence “that the person has not made sufficient progress in treatment to the point

       where he or she is no longer substantially probable to engage in acts of sexual violence if on

       conditional release.” 725 ILCS 207/60(d) (West 2020). The term “substantially probable” means

       much more likely than not. In re Commitment of Gavin, 2019 IL App (1st) 180881, ¶ 43.

¶ 36          Respondent argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that (1) he is still an SVP

       and that (2) he has not made sufficient progress in treatment to be conditionally released. He

       further argues that (3) Weitl’s testimony should have been stricken under section 55(b) of the

       SVP Act (725 ILCS 207/55(b) (West 2020)) because she did not take reasonable steps to engage

       him in the assessment process.

¶ 37          In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we ask whether, viewing the evidence in a

       light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the

       SVP Act proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Commitment of Fields, 2014 IL 115542, ¶ 20.

       We review the trial court’s factual findings under the manifest weight of the evidence standard

       (In re Commitment of Sandry, 367 Ill. App. 3d 949, 977-978 (2006); People v. Donath, 2013 IL

       App (3d) 120251, ¶ 38), meaning that we defer unless “an opposite conclusion is clearly

       apparent” (In re Estate of Cuneo, 334 Ill. App. 3d 594, 598 (2002)). Because the trial court is in

       the best position to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses, we will not substitute

       our judgment regarding the credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given to the evidence, or

       the inferences to be drawn therefrom. People v. Guerrero, 2012 IL 112020, ¶ 19. We review

                                                       -11-
       No. 1-23-0028

       issues of law de novo. People v. Daniels, 187 Ill. 2d 301, 307 (1999); People v. Carlson, 185 Ill.

       2d 546, 551 (1999).

¶ 38                                      Presence of a Mental Disorder

¶ 39          Respondent argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he suffers from a

       mental disorder, defined in the SVP Act as “a congenital or acquired condition affecting the

       emotional or volitional capacity that predisposes a person to engage in acts of sexual violence.”

       725 ILCS 207/5(b) (West 2020).

¶ 40          Weitl diagnosed respondent with two mental disorders: (1) pedophilic disorder and (2)

       “other specified paraphilic disorder, non-consent (males, aged 14 to 16).” She based her

       diagnosis of pedophilic disorder on respondent’s extensive criminal history, including numerous

       sexual assaults that he committed while on probation or parole, indicating that “his deviant

       sexual urges were such that he could not maintain himself while on supervised release.” She

       further testified that pedophilic disorder is a chronic, lifelong condition and that “[s]imilar to any

       sexual interest, *** the interest in children won’t go away.” In support, Weitl cited the DSM-5,

       which classifies pedophilic disorder as lifelong. Although Abbott argued that this was incorrect

       based on recent research, resolving this conflict in the evidence was the province of the finder of

       fact. See Guerrero, 2012 IL 112020, ¶ 19.

¶ 41          Respondent argues there was no showing that he currently suffers from pedophilic

       disorder, since his most recent crime was in 1993, he does not have access to children while in

       detention, and there was no evidence introduced of sexual offense analog behavior on his part.

       (As Weitl acknowledged, his most recent disciplinary infraction was in 2017, and he “has been

       okay” for “the last several years.”) However, “[c]ourts have consistently upheld SVP findings

       despite the absence of sexually offensive activity while in the controlled environments of prison

                                                        -12-
       No. 1-23-0028

       or the TDF.” In re Commitment of Evans, 2021 IL App (1st) 192293, ¶ 53 (citing In re Detention

       of White, 2016 IL App (1st) 151187, ¶ 60 (affirming SVP finding despite defendant’s argument

       that he had manifested no symptoms or conduct evidencing a mental disorder in the past 30 years

       in custody)); see also In re Detention of Lieberman, 379 Ill. App. 3d 585, 602 (2007) (evidence

       held sufficient despite the lack of any evidence of nonconsensual sexual activity in the previous

       26 years)).

¶ 42          Respondent further argues that Weitl “failed to account for” his PTSD, which, according

       to Abbott, was the cause of his attraction to children (and, therefore, managing his symptoms

       enabled him not to experience that attraction). Weitl rejected this theory in her testimony, stating

       that she did not include respondent’s PTSD diagnosis in her evaluation because it was not a

       mental disorder under the SVP Act and she did not view it as impacting respondent’s pedophilic

       disorder.

¶ 43          As for Weitl’s diagnosis of other specified paraphilic disorder (OSPD) for having sexual

       interest in males aged 14 to 16, the record indicates that respondent had one 16-year-old victim.

       However, Weitl denied that she based her diagnosis on that single victim, stating:

              “[T]here were so many 13-year-olds, and I was concerned that there was a chance they

              could be postpubescent. So I was trying to capture those victims in a greater light. I could

              have easily just left that diagnosis off like I did in 2012. I only added it trying to better

              describe [respondent].”

       She later reiterated that she made the diagnosis based on the “chance[]” that some of the 13-year-

       old victims might have been “almost 14” and stated: “I didn’t need to do that. I shouldn’t have

       done it clearly because it’s just made confusion. *** Pedophilic disorder is his main diagnosis.”

                                                        -13-
       No. 1-23-0028

¶ 44          Due to Weitl’s admission that her diagnosis of OSPD was based on speculation as to the

       “chance” that some of respondent’s 13-year-old victims might have been “postpubescent” or

       “almost 14,” we find the evidence was insufficient to support the OSPD diagnosis. See People v.

       Crane, 2020 IL App (3d) 170386, ¶ 29 (speculative inferences are not permissible in reviewing

       sufficiency of the evidence claim). However, this does not impact Weitl’s “main diagnosis” of

       pedophilic disorder, which, as discussed, was adequately supported by the evidence.

¶ 45          As for whether respondent’s pedophilic disorder affects his emotional or volitional

       capacity in ways that predispose him to engage in acts of sexual violence, this was the subject of

       conflicting expert testimony. Abbott testified that respondent displayed “improved emotional and

       behavioral control” due to therapy and medication, as evidenced by his lack of sexual offense

       analog behaviors and his clean disciplinary record since 2017. In contrast, Weitl testified that

       respondent was predisposed to engage in acts of sexual violence based on his repeated offenses

       while on parole in 1992 and on probation in 1993, plus his lack of progression in sex offender

       specific treatment. She opined that his disorder “is going to stay unresolved if he doesn’t get into

       treatment and work through that stuff.” As in Evans, “[t]he trial court expressly resolved the

       competing expert testimony by finding the State’s witnesses more credible. We have no basis to

       question that determination and will not substitute our judgment for the trial court's judgment.”

       Evans, 2021 IL App (1st) 192293, ¶ 56.

¶ 46                                   Substantial Likelihood to Reoffend

¶ 47          The State also bore the burden of proving that respondent was “substantially probable,”

       i.e., “much more likely than not” to reoffend. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gavin, 2019 IL

       App (1st) 180881, ¶ 43. This definition “cannot be reduced to a mere mathematical formula or

       statistical analysis”; instead, the finder of fact must make a “commonsense judgment” based on

                                                       -14-
       No. 1-23-0028

       “all factors that either increase or decrease the risk of reoffending.” In re Detention of Hayes,

       321 Ill. App. 3d 178, 188 (2001).

¶ 48          Both Weitl and Abbott gave respondent a score of 4 on the Static 99-R, which, according

       to Abbott, corresponds to a base five-year recidivism rate of 9.2%, adjusted for respondent’s age

       to 12.9%. However, Weitl did not rely solely on the Static 99-R, but also considered dynamic

       aggravating and protective factors. See White, 2016 IL App (1st) 151187, ¶ 61 (affirming SVP

       finding where State’s experts “did not rely solely on actuarial instruments, but also considered

       dynamic aggravating and protective factors”). In aggravation, Weitl cited “historical” factors of

       respondent’s employment instability, intimacy deficits, and substance abuse, as well as his

       difficulty managing his emotions and his demonstrated lack of success with conditional release

       on multiple occasions. She further observed that respondent is “not motivated for treatment” and

       did not consider his completion of ancillary groups to be a protective factor because “he is not

       dealing with his sex offending behavior.”

¶ 49          Respondent argues that Weitl’s testimony was not credible because she did not explain

       how she was weighing each factor or how the factors in concert raised respondent’s risk to the

       level of “substantially probable.” He further argues that many of the factors were “disproven” or

       “undermined” because they were historical in nature and did not apply to his current situation in

       custody. This, again, is an invitation to reweigh the evidence. Weitl conducted a comprehensive

       and detailed risk analysis of respondent, on which she was vigorously cross-examined, and

       which the trial court found to be credible. We find the evidence was sufficient to prove that

                                                       -15-
       No. 1-23-0028

       respondent suffered from a qualifying mental disorder and was substantially probable to reoffend

       if released.1

¶ 50                                     Sufficient Progression of Treatment

¶ 51           Respondent further argues that, even if he is still an SVP, the State failed to prove that he

       had not progressed sufficiently in treatment to be conditionally released.

¶ 52           The record reflects that respondent has largely declined sex offender specific treatment

       during his time in custody: he has not completed phase 1, the “treatment readiness” phase, and he

       has declined to participate in phase 2 disclosure groups. In his interview with Abbott, he

       attributed his lack of participation to his PTSD, but he did not inform Weitl or his treatment team

       of that fact. As discussed, there was conflicting testimony at trial as to the significance of his

       failure to progress in sex offender specific treatment—Abbott testified that respondent was able

       to work through his disorder via ancillary groups, while Weitl disagreed—but resolving that

       conflict was the province of the trial court.

¶ 53           Respondent asserts that Weitl’s testimony was based on a misapprehension of the law, in

       that she said that he could only be conditionally released if he were no longer an SVP. This

       misstates Weitl’s testimony. Weitl said that she would recommend respondent for release if “he

       was genuinely and actively involved in core or sex offender specific treatment *** to a point

       where [she] believe[d] it mitigated his risk.” She further stated that if he made sufficient

       progress, “it could even change his status as an SVP.” She did not describe lack of SVP status as

       a prerequisite for conditional release.

               1
                 Respondent’s reliance on In re Commitment of McCormack, 2021 IL App (1st) 181930-U, is
       unpersuasive, since both experts in that case agreed that McCormack was “at a low statistical risk to
       reoffend” (id. ¶ 28), whereas in this case, both experts agreed that respondent’s Static 99-R score places
       him in the “above-average risk category.”
                                                          -16-
       No. 1-23-0028

¶ 54          Respondent further argues that the trial court improperly based its ruling solely on his

       failure to participate in sex offender treatment, rather than the standard set forth in section 60(d)

       of the SVP Act. 725 ILCS 207/60(d) (West 2020) (conditional release petition “shall” be granted

       unless State proves “that the person has not made sufficient progress in treatment to the point

       where he or she is no longer substantially probable to engage in acts of sexual violence if on

       conditional release”). However, the court explicitly acknowledged and considered that “[t]he

       plain language of the statute does not specify sex offender treatment.” The court found Weitl’s

       testimony to be credible and clarified on denial of rehearing that it took respondent’s completion

       of ancillary groups into account but did not consider them sufficient to qualify respondent for

       release. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not misapprehend the applicable standard

       under the SVP Act, and the evidence was sufficient to prove that respondent has not made

       sufficient progress in treatment to be conditionally released.

¶ 55                        Failure to Engage Respondent in the Assessment Process

¶ 56          Respondent argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to strike Weitl’s

       testimony because she failed to take reasonable steps to engage him in the assessment process.

       We review the trial court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion. In re Tittlebach, 324 Ill. App. 3d 6,

       10 (2001).

¶ 57          Section 55(b) of the SVP Act (725 ILCS 207/55(b) (West 2020)) requires examinations

       to be conducted “in conformance with the standards developed under the Sex Offender

       Management Board Act,” which are codified at Title 20, Part 1905 of the Illinois Administrative

       Code. In relevant part, section 1905.40 states that assessments “are most reliable and beneficial

       when evaluators *** strive to engage clients in the assessment process.” 20 Ill. Adm. Code

       1905.40(b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2017). Section 1905.50(a) requires evaluators to take “reasonable steps”

                                                        -17-
       No. 1-23-0028

       to “afford the client who is the subject of the assessment *** the opportunity to make an

       informed decision about participating in the assessment process.” 20 Ill. Adm. Code 1905.50(a)

       (eff. Jan. 1, 2017).

¶ 58           Weitl did not interview respondent in conjunction with her 2021 assessment. She testified

       that she emailed “the individual at the facility who schedules the Zoom meetings” to request an

       interview with respondent and was told that he was “unavailable” because of a facility-wide

       quarantine. (The record is unclear as to why a quarantine would have precluded a Zoom

       interview.) Weitl did not ask when the quarantine would be over, nor did she ask to interview

       respondent after the quarantine or take any steps to notify him that he had lost the chance to

       interview with her. She admitted that she did not provide respondent an opportunity to make an

       informed decision about whether to participate in an interview with her in 2021.

¶ 59           Respondent moved to strike Weitl’s testimony for failure to comply with section 55(b) of

       the SVP Act. Following arguments by the parties, the court asked respondent’s counsel, “Are

       you affirmatively saying that your client would have participated in an interview with Dr.

       Weitl?” Counsel replied, “Well, Judge, I’m not saying that one way or another.” Counsel

       acknowledged that he could have contacted Weitl to arrange an interview with his client and did

       not do so, but he argued that the statute placed the burden solely on Weitl. The court denied the

       motion to strike, finding that any failure by Weitl to comply with section 55(b) went to the

       weight of her testimony rather than its admissibility, and stating that it “w[ould] take it into

       consideration.”

¶ 60           We do not find this ruling to be an abuse of discretion. See In re Commitment of Sandry,

       367 Ill. App. 3d 949, 977 (2006) (allegation that expert’s opinion was flawed because he did not

       interview SVP was relevant to its credibility and weight, not its admissibility). Respondent cites

                                                        -18-
       No. 1-23-0028

       no cases in which an evaluator’s testimony was stricken under section 55(b) for failure to take

       reasonable steps to engage a subject in the evaluation process. People v. Orth, 124 Ill. 2d 326,

       340 (1988), involving breathalyzer test results, is inapposite because the statute at issue in that

       case set forth prerequisites for the admissibility of such results, whereas section 55(b) of the SVP

       Act merely provides that examinations “shall” be conducted in accordance with the Sex Offender

       Management Board Act.

¶ 61                                             CONCLUSION

¶ 62          For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

¶ 63          Affirmed.

                                                       -19-