Find Legal Information

THIRD DIVISION

December 2, 1998

No. 1-97-4195

JUSTICE CERDA delivered the opinion of the court:

In April 1987, defendant, Charles Chiakulas, was found not guilty of aggravated battery (720ILCS 5/12-4 (West 1992)), and attempted murder (720 ILCS 5/8-4, 9-1 (West 1992)), by reasonof insanity and ordered to the custody of the Illinois Department of Mental Health andDevelopmental Disabilities (now the Department of Human Services) (Department). In May1996, defendant filed a motion for review of a treatment plan dated April 1996 which was filedby the director of the Elgin Mental Health Center, the Department institution where defendantwas then committed. The circuit court denied the motion, and defendant appealed. In May 1997,this court reversed the circuit court's order and remanded with directions that the circuit courtreview defendant's treatment plan and make a pronouncement to that effect. People v.Chiakulas,288 Ill. App. 3d 248, 254-55, 681 N.E.2d 35, 39 (1997) (Chiakulas I).

On remand, the circuit court, ex parte, entered an order stating ithad reviewed all relevant plansin accordance with section 5-2-4(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Corrections Code) (730ILCS 5/5-2-4(b) (West Supp. 1997)) and section 3-814 of the Mental Health and DevelopmentalDisabilities Code (Mental Health Code) (405 ILCS 5/3-814 (West 1996)), and found them to be"adequate and necessary." Defendant filed a motion to vacate or, in the alternative, forreconsideration, which was denied by the circuit court in October 1997. At no time diddefendantrequest the circuit court for a hearing to review his treatment plans. Defendant appeals, arguingthe circuit court erred in finding that his treatment plan satisfied the minimum statutoryrequirements. For the following reasons, we affirm.

In Chiakulas I, we reviewed the following court order:

"This matter coming before the court pursuant to a Motion for Review ofTreatment Plan. It is hereby ordered that [ ] motion is hereby denied and this matter shall be taken from thecall."

This court held, in relevant part, that an individual committed to the Department pursuant tobeing found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI acquittee) is entitled to have the circuit courtreview his or her treatment plans filed in accordance with section 5-2-4(b) of the CorrectionsCode. Chiakulas I, 288 Ill. App. 3d 252-53, 681 N.E.2d at 38. The court furtherheld that whenrequested by any party the circuit court should make a pronouncement, in an order, that it hasreviewed the plan. Chiakulas I, 288 Ill. App. 253, 681 N.E.2d at 39.

Section 5-2-4(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections provides in part:

"If the Court finds the defendant subject to involuntary admission ***, theadmission,detention, care, treatment or habilitation, review proceedings, and discharge of thedefendant after such order shall be under the Mental Health and Developmental DisabilitiesCode." 730 ILCS 5/5-2-4(b) (West 1992).

Section 3-814 of the Mental Health Code provides in part:

"The recipient or an interested person on his behalf may request a hearing orthe court onits own motion may order a hearing to review the treatment plan." 405 ILCS 5/30814(West 1994).

Central to the court's decision was the relationship between section 5-2-4(b) of theCorrectionsCode and section 3-814 of the Mental Health Code. Upon finding the two statutory provisionsinclusive and complementary, the court explained, pursuant to section 3-814, an NGRIacquittee'streatment plan and its review are subject to the provisions of 5-2-4 of the Corrections Code. Chiakulas I, 288 Ill. App. 3d at 252, 681 N.E.2d at 37-38. The court further notedsection 5-2-4directs that review proceedings involving an NGRI acquittee shall be under the Mental HealthCode. Chiakulas I, 288 Ill. App. 3d at 252, 681 N.E.2d at 37.

According to the court, both sections 3-814 and 5-2-4(b) require the circuit court to reviewtheNGRI acquittee's treatment plan. The court specifically found that section 3-814 providesguidance to the circuit court in monitoring the appropriateness and effectiveness of theacquittee'streatment. In its review of the treatment plan, the court may, in its discretion, "order any publicagency, officer, or employee to render such information, cooperation and assistance as is withinit's legal authority". The court also has the discretion to order a hearing to review the treatmentplan. The NGRI acquittee or any interested person in his or her behalf may likewise request thecourt to conduct a hearing to review the treatment plan. 405 ILCS 5/3-814 (West 1996). Ifsatisfied the acquittee is benefiting from his or her current treatment, the court may continue theoriginal order for the remainder of the admission period. Conversely, if the court is not satisfied,it may modify its original order or direct the acquittee to be discharged. ChiakulasI, 288 Ill.App. 3d at 252, 681 N.E.2d at 38, citing 405 ILCS 5/3-814 (West 1996).

The court noted that mandated judicial review of an NGRI acquittee's treatment plan isconsistentwith the legislative history of section 5-2-4. Citing the Report, Governor'sCommission forRevision of the Mental Health Code of Illinois, the court explained that section 5-2-4 andtheMental Health Code interface to require an individualized treatment plan and periodic evaluationof the acquittee's progress, both of which are subject to court review. These mandates ensure notonly that the acquittee will be provided an integrated treatment regimen consistent with hisneeds,but also that the court is apprised of the acquittee's current condition. Chiakulas I,288 Ill. App.3d at 252-53, 681 N.E.2d at 38. Accordingly, the court is able to monitor the progress oftreatment and discern any significant changes in the acquittee's condition. Furthermore, thesemandates help prevent the acquitee from becoming "lost in the mental health and court systems." Chiakulas I, 288 Ill. App. 3d at 253, 681 N.E.2d at 38.

The circuit court in the instant case explicitly stated in its order on remand that it hadrevieweddefendant's treatment plans, including the April 1996 plan, pursuant to sections 5-2-4(b) and3-814, and found them legally sufficient and necessary for defendant's current condition. Nofurther action was required of the court pursuant to our decision in Chiakulas I.

The motion before the circuit court in Chiakulas I was a motion for review ofthe treatment plan. There was no motion for a hearing. All that this court required in view of the motion and orderwas that the court make a pronouncement, in an order, that it had reviewed the treatment plan. No further discussion was necessary. If the court believed that a hearing to review the treatmentplan was needed, it could have ordered a hearing without a request by any party.

If the recipient or an interested party request the court to hold a hearing to review a treatmentplan, the court may exercise its discretion to grant or deny the request. The statutes state that thecourt must be satisfied that the defendant-recipient is benefitting from treatment.

Notably, neither the Corrections Code or the Mental Health Code permit an NGRI acquiteetoseek review of his or her treatment plan by simply filing a motion to vacate or forreconsideration, as defendant did here. Rather, an acquittee must request a hearing for reviewwith the circuit court pursuant to section 3-814. The court then may exercise its discretion toeither grant or deny the request keeping in mind that the court must be satisfied that thedefendant-recipient is benefiting from the treatment. We stress acquittees do not have theabsolute right to obtain a hearing. As stated in Chiakulas I, "there is nothing ineither statute thatgives an NGRI acquittee the right to a hearing on his or her treatment plan." 288 Ill. App. 3d at253, 681 N.E.2d at 38. The acquittee is entitled only to request a hearing. By stating it hadreviewed defendant's treatment plan and pronouncing in an order it had done so, we conclude thecircuit court complied with this court's mandate in Chiakulas I.

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

CERDA, J., with BURKE, J., and LEAVITT, J., concurring.