{
  "id": 2704941,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald K. Sly, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Sly",
  "decision_date": "1975-02-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 73-416",
  "first_page": "953",
  "last_page": "955",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 Ill. App. 3d 953"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "281 N.E.2d 678",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill.2d 190",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5392291
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/51/0190-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 275,
    "char_count": 4307,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.674,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08364406573510656
    },
    "sha256": "b9216196c4160e0186563d4e3600f3a777e3ea15b862348a1584d6e48bce112c",
    "simhash": "1:38a7cdc0d8e7b211",
    "word_count": 705
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:50:56.200740+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. Donald K. Sly, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE HALLETT\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from an order revoking the conditional release of the defendant and recommitting him, under the terms of the original commitment, to the Director of Corrections, pursuant to the provisions of the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, pars. 105 \u2014 1.01 through 105 \u2014 12).\nThe sole issue here presented is whether, upon such revocation, the court was required to hold a \u201csentencing hearing\u201d prior to recommitting the defendant to the Director under the terms of the original commitment. We hold that such a hearing is not required and affirm.\nOn December 5, 1966, the defendant was committed to the custody of the Director of Corrections as a sexually dangerous person by the circuit court of Winnebago County (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, ch. 38, par. 105 \u2014 1.01 et seq.). On February 20, 1970, upon petition, the defendant was released by the court for an indeterminate period in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the statute relative thereto (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 105 \u2014 10). A petition to revoke this conditional release was filed by the State\u2019s attorney seeldng to recommit the defendant under the terms of his original commitment. At this hearing the defendant was represented by competent counsel with the right of confrontation and cross-examination. The record discloses that the defendant took a minor boy to his apartment, showed him pornographic movies and undid the zipper of the boy\u2019s pants and played with the genitals of the minor. There are no issues concerning whether or not minimum due process standards were complied with at the recommitment hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge revoked the defendant\u2019s conditional release and ordered him recommitted to the Department of Corrections. The defendant contends that he was \u201csentenced\u201d pursuant to the provisions of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, pars. 1005 \u2014 4\u20141 and 1005 \u2014 6\u20144). Specifically, defendant contends that the court is required to hold a sentencing hearing prior to his recommitment. We do not agree.\nIn People v. Studdard (1972), 51 Ill.2d 190, 281 N.E.2d 678, our supreme court, in interpreting sections 9 and 10 of the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, pars. 105 \u2014 9 and 105\u2014 10), at pages 194-195, said:\n\u201cThese sections also provide that in the event the person conditionally released violates any of the conditions of such order, \u2018the court shall revoke such conditional release and recommit the person under the terms of the original commitment.\u2019\u201d\nAt no time did the supreme court in that case consider the recommitment order a \u201csentence.\u201d In holding that a psychiatric examination was not necessary at that stage in the proceedings the court, at page 195, went on to state with regard to a defendant who is alleged to have violated the terms of his conditional release:\n\u201cThe determination to be made at this stage is whether the person violated any of the conditions of the conditional release order. If it is found that he has violated any condition, then the statute is mandatoiy that the court recommit him under the terms of the original commitment.\u201d\nThe court further observed, at page 195, that:\n\u201cBy virtue of this section the person is afforded an opportunity at any stage, including the recommitment stage, to file his application for discharge and has the benefit of any psychiatric or other relevant evidence he may wish to have the court consider.\u201d\nWe therefore hold, under the express provisions of section 105 \u2014 10 of the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, and in line with Studdard, that a sentencing hearing is not required prior to the recommitment of an individual as a sexually dangerous person. The order of commitment is merely reinstated and is not a sentence.\nAffirmed.\nSEIDENFELD, P. J., and GUILD, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE HALLETT"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ralph Ruebner, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.",
      "Philip G. Reinhard, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford (James W. Jerz and Martin P. Moltz, both of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald K. Sly, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 73-416;\nSecond District \u2014 (1st Division)\nFebruary 11, 1975.\nRalph Ruebner, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.\nPhilip G. Reinhard, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford (James W. Jerz and Martin P. Moltz, both of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0953-01",
  "first_page_order": 977,
  "last_page_order": 979
}