People v. Tunget
State: Illinois
Court: 3rd District Appellate
Docket No: 3-95-0781
Case Date: 04/08/1997
No. 3--95--0781
_________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
A.D., 1997
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) for the 13th Judicial Circuit
) LaSalle County, Illinois
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) No. 86--CM--68
)
STEVEN TUNGET, ) Honorable
) James Lanuti
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding
_________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the Opinion of the Court:
_________________________________________________________________
The defendant, Steven Tunget, was adjudicated a sexually
dangerous person in October 1986. In March 1995, a jury found
that he was still sexually dangerous. Following the denial of
his post-trial motion on July 17, 1995, the defendant appealed.
In addition to the appeal, the defendant filed another petition
showing recovery on July 31, 1995. The trial court determined
that it did not have jurisdiction over the July petition because
the March decision was being appealed. Therefore, the court dis-
missed the July petition. In this appeal, we shall consider only
whether the trial court properly dismissed the defendant's July
petition. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (Act) defines a sexually
dangerous person as a person who: (1) suffers from a mental
disorder coupled with propensities to the commission of sex
offenses; and (2) has demonstrated propensities toward acts of
sexual assault or acts of sexual molestation of children. 725
ILCS 205/1.01 (West 1994). Such a person is committed to the
custody of the Director of Corrections until such time as he is
no longer sexually dangerous. 725 ILCS 205/8 (West 1994). A
sexually dangerous person may file an application showing recov-
ery with the committing court and thereafter obtain a hearing on
whether he has recovered and should be released. 725 ILCS 205/9
(West 1994). The Act contains no limitation on the number of
applications showing recovery that a sexually dangerous person
may bring. Nor does the Act require a sexually dangerous person
to wait for any length of time between applications.
In the case at bar, the defendant's July 1995 application
showing recovery was dismissed by the trial court because the
decision on his March 1995 petition was being appealed. That
appeal, the court reasoned, removed the court's jurisdiction over
the defendant's petition. That is correct with regard to the
March 1995 petition. Once the defendant filed his notice of
appeal of the decision on his March 1995 petition, the trial
court was without jurisdiction to make any further decisions on
that petition. See People v. Aleman, 281 Ill. App. 3d 991, 667
N.E.2d 615 (1996).
The July 1995 petition initiated a completely new proceed-
ing, however, and invoked the jurisdiction of the court indepen-
dently of any previous decisions. Thus, the trial court could
have exercised jurisdiction over the July 1995 petition regard-
less of the status of the March 1995 proceeding.
We agree with the State that the Act's statutory scheme is
wasteful of judicial and other resources. However, we must leave
the correction of this problem to the General Assembly. Our duty
is not to enact the laws but merely to interpret them. Nor do we
address any other issues that may arise when a defendant repeat-
edly files essentially the same petition. We hold only that the
trial court may properly exercise jurisdiction over a successor
petition even during the pendency of an appeal on an earlier
petition.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court
of LaSalle County is reversed and this matter is remanded for
further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
HOMER and McCUSKEY, JJ., concurring.
Illinois Law
Illinois State Laws
Illinois Tax
Illinois Court
Illinois Labor Laws
> Minimum Wage in Illinois
Illinois Agencies