In re Commitment of Bice

── In re Commitment of Bice ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (2d) 250237-U No. 2-25-0237 Order filed June 4, 2026 NOTICE: This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedential except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT In re COMMITMENT OF JAMES BICE (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. James Bice, Respondent-Appellant). Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County. Honorable Ari P. Fisz, Judge, Presiding. No. 00-MR-1076 JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Kennedy and Justice Hutchinson concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: The trial court did not err in denying respondent an evidentiary hearing on whether probable caused existed to believe that he remained a sexually violent person as defined by the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act. Respondent did not establish any changed circumstances since the last probable cause hearing that might plausibly suggest he was no longer predisposed toward sexual violence. ¶2 In 2010, a trial court adjudicated respondent, James Bice, a sexually violent person (SVP) as defined by the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (Act) (725 ILCS 207/1 et seq. (West 2010)) and ordered him committed to the custody of the Department of Human Services (DHS) until he was no longer an SVP. Respondent now appeals an order holding that he failed to show probable cause to believe that he is no longer an SVP and, accordingly, denying him a discharge hearing. We affirm. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 A. Initial Commitment ¶5 Respondent was born in 1982. On December 21, 2000, the State petitioned to adjudicate him an SVP and commit him to DHS. The cause was continued numerous times. ¶6 On March 9, 2010, the parties stipulated to the following factual basis for commitment. On January 29, 1996, respondent was adjudicated delinquent based on his 1995 aggravated criminal sexual abuse of his three-year-old half-sister, and he was committed to the Juvenile Department of Corrections (JDOC). Previously, respondent had committed other offenses: (1) sexually fondling his 6-year-old and 8-year-old cousins when he was approximately 10 years old, (2) fondling the vagina of an 8-year-old girl, and (3) exposing his penis to 14 children between the ages of 2 and 13. (In addition to this specific misconduct, the stipulation noted: “Respondent has admitted to sexual behaviors with seventeen (17) children.”) In January 1997, respondent was paroled to a residential sexual-offender treatment facility. He engaged in sexually inappropriate behaviors with other residents and, in October 1997, was discharged unsuccessfully and returned to the JDOC. In 1998, respondent was paroled to a different residential sexual-offender facility, but he engaged in sexual misconduct with two roommates and was discharged and returned to the JDOC. ¶7 The stipulation continued as follows. If called at a trial, Dr. Agnes Jonas would testify that respondent suffered from pedophilia and borderline personality disorder. Dr. Paul Heaton would testify that respondent suffered from paraphilia and borderline personality disorder with antisocial traits. Both experts would testify that (1) respondent suffered from mental disorders as defined by the Act and that these mental disorders “seriously affect[ed] [his] emotional or volitional capacity and predispose[d] him to engage in acts of sexual violence