Court Opinion

ID: 9943637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 22:04:14.726399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:38.855600
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (5th) 230086-U
             NOTICE
                                                                                             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