{
  "id": 257212,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLES CHIAKULAS, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Chiakulas",
  "decision_date": "1998-12-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 1\u201497\u20144195",
  "first_page": "914",
  "last_page": "918",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "301 Ill. App. 3d 914"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "681 N.E.2d 35",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 9,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "39",
          "parenthetical": "Chiakulas I"
        },
        {
          "page": "38"
        },
        {
          "page": "39"
        },
        {
          "page": "37-38"
        },
        {
          "page": "37"
        },
        {
          "page": "38"
        },
        {
          "page": "38"
        },
        {
          "page": "38"
        },
        {
          "page": "38"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 Ill. App. 3d 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        1596938
      ],
      "weight": 9,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "254-55",
          "parenthetical": "Chiakulas I"
        },
        {
          "page": "250"
        },
        {
          "page": "252-53"
        },
        {
          "page": "252"
        },
        {
          "page": "252"
        },
        {
          "page": "252"
        },
        {
          "page": "252-53"
        },
        {
          "page": "253"
        },
        {
          "page": "253"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/288/0248-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 397,
    "char_count": 8977,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.749,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.010206386549949438
    },
    "sha256": "d15cb381ee3dec622578b5d7107b9324b1ed98eb5ff18a30456072a67b680803",
    "simhash": "1:08f4ff3aa4cdf6b6",
    "word_count": 1497
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:13:21.929948+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. CHARLES CHIAKULAS, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE CERDA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn April 1987, defendant, Charles Chiakulas, was found not guilty of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 4 (West 1992)) and attempted murder (720 ILCS 5/8 \u2014 4, 9 \u2014 1 (West 1992)) by reason of insanity and ordered to the custody of the Illinois Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities (now the Department of Human Services) (Department). In May 1996, defendant filed a motion for review of a treatment plan dated April 1996 which was filed by the director of the Elgin Mental Health Center, the Department institution where defendant was then committed. The circuit court denied the motion, and defendant appealed. In May 1997, this court reversed the circuit court\u2019s order and remanded with directions that the circuit court review defendant\u2019s 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).\nOn remand, the circuit court, ex parte, entered an order stating it had reviewed all relevant plans in accordance with section 5 \u2014 2\u20144(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Corrections Code) (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 2 \u2014 4(b) (West Supp. 1997)) and section 3 \u2014 814 of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (Mental Health Code) (405 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 814 (West 1996)), and found them to be \u201cadequate and necessary.\u201d Defendant filed a motion to vacate or, in the alternative, for reconsideration, which was denied by the circuit court in October 1997. At no time did defendant request the circuit court for a hearing to review his treatment plans. Defendant appeals, arguing the circuit court erred in finding that his treatment plan satisfied the minimum statutory requirements. For the following reasons, we affirm.\nIn Chiakulas I, we reviewed the following court order:\n\u201c \u2018This matter coming before the court pursuant to a Motion for Review of Treatment Plan. It is hereby ordered that [ ] motion is hereby denied and this matter shall be taken from the call.\u2019 \u201d Chiakulas, 288 Ill. App. 3d at 250.\nThis court held, in relevant part, that an individual committed to the Department pursuant to being found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI acquittee) is entitled to have the circuit court review his or her treatment plans filed in accordance with section 5 \u2014 2\u20144(b) of the Corrections Code. Chiakulas I, 288 Ill. App. 3d at 252-53, 681 N.E.2d at 38. The court further held that, when requested by any party, the circuit court should make a pronouncement, in an order, that it has reviewed the plan. Chiakulas I, 288 Ill. App. at 253, 681 N.E.2d at 39.\nSection 5 \u2014 2\u20144(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections provides in part:\n\u201cIf the Court finds the defendant subject to involuntary admission ***, the admission, detention, care, treatment or habilitation, review proceedings, and discharge of the defendant after such order shall be under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code.\u201d 730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 2\u20144(b) (West 1992).\nSection 3 \u2014 814 of the Mental Health Code provides in part:\n\u201cThe recipient or an interested person on his behalf may request a hearing or the court on its own motion may order a hearing to review the treatment plan.\u201d 405 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 814 (West 1994).\nCentral to the court\u2019s decision was the relationship between section 5 \u2014 2\u20144(b) of the Corrections Code and section 3 \u2014 814 of the Mental Health Code. Upon finding the two statutory provisions inclusive and complementary, the court explained, pursuant to section 3 \u2014 814, an NGRI acquittee\u2019s treatment plan and its review are subject to the provisions of section 5 \u2014 2\u20144 of the Corrections Code. Chiakulas I, 288 Ill. App. 3d at 252, 681 N.E.2d at 37-38. The court further noted section 5 \u2014 2\u20144 directs that review proceedings involving an NGRI acquittee shall be under the Mental Health Code. Chiakulas I, 288 Ill. App. 3d at 252, 681 N.E.2d at 37.\nAccording to the court, both sections 3 \u2014 814 and 5 \u2014 2\u20144(b) require the circuit court to review the NGRI acquittee\u2019s treatment plan. The court specifically found that section 3 \u2014 814 provides guidance to the circuit court in monitoring the appropriateness and effectiveness of the acquittee\u2019s treatment. In its review of the treatment plan, the court may, in its discretion, \u201corder any public agency, officer, or employee to render such information, cooperation, and assistance as is within its legal authority.\u201d 405 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 814 (West 1994). The court also has the discretion to order a hearing to review the treatment plan. The NGRI acquittee or any interested person in his or her behalf may likewise request the court to conduct a hearing to review the treatment plan. 405 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 814 (West 1996). If satisfied the acquittee is benefiting from his or her current treatment, the court may continue the original 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. Chiakulas I, 288 Ill. App. 3d at 252, 681 N.E.2d at 38, citing 405 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 814 (West 1996).\nThe court noted that mandated judicial review of an NGRI acquit-tee\u2019s treatment plan is consistent with the legislative history of section 5 \u2014 2\u20144. Citing the Report, Governor\u2019s Commission for Revision of the Mental Health Code of Illinois (hereinafter Report), the court explained that section 5 \u2014 2\u20144 and the Mental Health Code interface to require an individualized treatment plan and periodic evaluation of the acquittee\u2019s progress, both of which are subject to court review. These mandates ensure not only that the acquittee will be provided an integrated treatment regimen consistent with his needs, but also that the court is apprised of the acquittee\u2019s 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 of treatment and discern any significant changes in the acquittee\u2019s condition. Furthermore, these mandates help prevent the acquittee from becoming \u201c \u2018lost in the mental health and court systems.\u2019 \u201d Chiakulas I, 288 Ill. App. 3d at 253, 681 N.E.2d at 38, quoting Report, at 48.\nThe circuit court in the instant case explicitly stated in its order on remand that it had reviewed defendant\u2019s treatment plans, including the April 1996 plan, pursuant to sections 5 \u2014 2\u20144(b) and 3 \u2014 814, and found them legally sufficient and necessary for defendant\u2019s current condition. No further action was required of the court pursuant to our decision in Chiakulas I.\nThe motion before the circuit court in Chiakulas I was a motion for review of the treatment plan. There was no motion for a hearing. All that this court required in view of the motion and order was 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 treatment plan was needed, it could have ordered a hearing without a request by any party.\nIf the recipient or an interested party requests the court to hold a hearing to review a treatment plan, the court may exercise its discretion to grant or deny the request. The statutes state that the court must be satisfied that the defendant-recipient is benefitting from treatment.\nNotably, neither the Corrections Code nor the Mental Health Code permits an NGRI acquittee to seek review of his or her treatment plan by simply filing a motion to vacate or for reconsideration, as defendant did here. Rather, an acquittee must request a hearing for review with the circuit court pursuant to section 3 \u2014 814. The court then may exercise its discretion to either grant or deny the request, keeping in mind that the court must be satisfied that the defendant-recipient is benefiting from the treatment. We stress acquittees do not have the absolute right to obtain a hearing. As stated in Chiakulas I, \u201cthere is nothing in either statute that gives an NGRI acquittee the right to a hearing on his or her treatment plan.\u201d 288 Ill. App. 3d at 253, 681 N.E.2d at 38. The acquittee is entitled only to request a hearing. By stating it had reviewed defendant\u2019s treatment plan and pronouncing in an order it had done so, we conclude the circuit court complied with this court\u2019s mandate in Chiakulas I. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nBURKE and LEAVITT, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE CERDA"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edwin E Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, of Chicago (Mark J. Heyrman, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Richard A. Devine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb and James Beligratis, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.",
      "James E. Ryan, Attorney General (Barbara A. Preiner, Solicitor General, of counsel), and Janon E. Fabiano, both of Chicago, for appellee Department of Human Services."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLES CHIAKULAS, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 1\u201497\u20144195\nOpinion filed December 2, 1998.\nEdwin E Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, of Chicago (Mark J. Heyrman, of counsel), for appellant.\nRichard A. Devine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb and James Beligratis, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.\nJames E. Ryan, Attorney General (Barbara A. Preiner, Solicitor General, of counsel), and Janon E. Fabiano, both of Chicago, for appellee Department of Human Services."
  },
  "file_name": "0914-01",
  "first_page_order": 932,
  "last_page_order": 936
}