{
  "id": 2535646,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene Haywood, Jr., Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Haywood",
  "decision_date": "1968-07-18",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 67-40",
  "first_page": "344",
  "last_page": "346",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "96 Ill. App. 2d 344"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "225 NE2d 634",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill2d 11",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2865511
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/37/0011-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 NE2d 625",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 Ill2d 306",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2839032
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/32/0306-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 265,
    "char_count": 3490,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.665,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.229122738981154e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5104270557858779
    },
    "sha256": "a6880f111dc9a733ed7ace5527a36acb46635adc7e71032d554d2465dea551ea",
    "simhash": "1:ab41b793fcea89c8",
    "word_count": 581
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:25.622235+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene Haywood, Jr., Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GOLDENHERSH, J.\nDefendant appeals from the order of the Circuit Court of Franklin County, entered upon allowance of The People\u2019s motion to dismiss his application filed under the provisions of section 9 of the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (c 38, \u00a7 105-9, Ill Rev Stats 1967).\nIn his handwritten petition, filed pro se, defendant states that on November 20, 1962, he was adjudged to be a Sexually Dangerous Person, and committed to the custody of the Director of Public Safety and has been in such custody continuously since that date, that he has undergone and completed all of the medical treatment prescribed for him, he has a perfect work and conduct record in the institution where he is confined, and \u201cverily believes that he has fully and permanently recovered from any and all of the psychoses that he may once have had.\u201d\nIn compliance with the statute, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Franklin County sent a copy of the petition to the Director of the Department of Public Safety, and the Director sent the court a copy of a \u201cSpecial Progress Report\u201d prepared by the psychiatrist assigned to the institution where defendant is confined.\nThe People moved to dismiss on the grounds that the application does not set forth facts showing defendant has recovered from being a Sexually Dangerous Person and the sociopsychiatric report does not show he has recovered. The trial court allowed the motion, dismissed the application, and this appeal followed.\nUnder the rules set forth in the People v. Olmstead, 32 Ill2d 306, 205 NE2d 625, and the People v. Capoldi, 37 Ill2d 11, 225 NE2d 634, the application stated sufficient facts to require the court to set the matter for hearing. The content of, and conclusions reached in, the sociopsychiatric report, do not affect defendant\u2019s right to a hearing. The report is not conclusive \u2014 it is to be considered by the court together with \u201cany other relevant information submitted by or on behalf of\u201d the defendant.\nWe have considered The People\u2019s argument with respect to the fact that a hearing held approximately 18 months prior to the filing of the present application resulted in a jury verdict that defendant had not recovered. Section 9 contains neither a time limitation for the filing of successive applications, nor a provision for mandatory review of need for continued confinement. We note, however, that section 10-2 of the Mental Health Code of 1967 (c 91%, \u00a7 10-2, Ill Rev Stats 1967) requires, \u201cas frequently as possible but not less than every 6 months\u201d a review of the need for continued hospitalization of patients confined under its provisions.\nWe do not here decide the questions of whether a minimum period of time is required between the filing of successive applications, or if so, what the minimum period should be. We hold that in this case the fact that an application for recovery had been denied 18 months prior to the filing of the present application does not bar its filing and prosecution.\nFor the reasons stated the order of the Circuit Court of Franklin County is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nOrder reversed and remanded with directions.\nEBERSPACHER and MORAN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GOLDENHERSH, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lloyd D. Cox, of Benton, for appellant.",
      "Joseph W. Hickman, State\u2019s Attorney of Franklin County, of Benton, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene Haywood, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 67-40.\nFifth District.\nJuly 18, 1968.\nLloyd D. Cox, of Benton, for appellant.\nJoseph W. Hickman, State\u2019s Attorney of Franklin County, of Benton, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0344-01",
  "first_page_order": 350,
  "last_page_order": 352
}