Background
Andrew Savoy was adjudicated delinquent in June 2009, at age 14, for criminal sexual assault of his 9-year-old sister. He received juvenile sex offender treatment from 2009 to 2021 but demonstrated a consistent pattern of treatment failure, boundary violations, and abuse of multiple victims (his sister and brother). In September 2022, the trial court adjudicated Savoy as a sexually violent person under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act and ordered commitment to the Department of Human Services. In April 2023, at a dispositional hearing, the trial court approved Savoy’s placement in the DHS conditional release program, which he acknowledged understanding and consenting to in writing.
Savoy was released to conditional release in April 2023 but voluntarily returned to the detention facility in June 2023 due to suicidal ideations. He was re-released in January 2024. Between January and December 2024, Savoy was issued one letter of understanding, nine letters of admonishment, one violation report, and a behavioral contract. In December 2024, the State petitioned to revoke his conditional release, alleging violations of three specific release conditions: Condition 6 (full participation in treatment), Condition 27 (providing activity logs), and Condition 32 (truthfulness to agents and case management).
The trial court held a revocation hearing in January 2025 at which therapist Morgan Franden and conditional release agent Elsa Sandoval testified about numerous instances of Savoy’s non-compliance. The trial court found Savoy violated all three alleged conditions and revoked his conditional release in February 2025. Savoy appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed, applying a two-step analysis. First, the court reviewed whether the trial court’s factual findings that Savoy violated his release conditions were supported by clear and convincing evidence under the manifest weight standard. Second, the court determined whether the trial court abused its discretion in deciding to revoke conditional release. The court found no error at either step.
On the violation of Condition 6 (full participation in treatment), evidence showed that Savoy failed to disclose a “violent rape fantasy” involving his sister to his therapist despite revealing it to a polygraph examiner. He also acted inappropriately during a penile plethysmograph test, causing it to take twice as long, and lied to his agent about his medication’s side effects. For Condition 27 (activity logs), Savoy failed to complete his sexual functioning logs for seven days—logs the treatment team determined essential to monitoring his “deviant sexual arousal” risk factor. For Condition 32 (truthfulness), Savoy engaged in a pattern of deception: he failed to disclose that his brother (a previous victim) was living with his grandfather, whom he proposed as a support person; he falsely claimed to have called Com Ed about billing issues when call logs proved otherwise; he lied about being locked out of his apartment; and he repeatedly gave conflicting statements about his GPS monitoring device, initially denying issues then admitting over three hours that it had been going off since his initial call with the agent.
The court emphasized that although individual violations might seem minor, the pattern of “little/big lies” over less than one year, combined with expert testimony that Savoy needed constant redirection and demonstrated poor compliance despite a dedicated treatment team, justified revocation. The trial court also noted that implementation of a behavioral contract and other interventions had failed to achieve compliance. Importantly, the court clarified that in a conditional release revocation proceeding, the State need not re-prove that Savoy is a sexually violent person—it only must prove violation of release conditions, a lower burden than the original SVP commitment standard.
Key Takeaways
- Revocation of conditional release under the SVP Act requires only proof of violation of release conditions or threat to community safety—not re-proof that the person is a sexually violent person.
- A pattern of deception and non-compliance over time, even with individually minor-seeming violations, can constitute grounds for revocation.
- Failure to disclose sexual functioning information and fantasies constitutes a serious violation when transparent reporting is essential to the treatment plan’s effectiveness.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to revoke conditional release, and appellate courts will not overturn such decisions absent clear abuse of discretion.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the practical distinction between SVP commitment proceedings and conditional release revocation proceedings in Illinois. While the original SVP commitment requires clear and convincing evidence that a person suffers from a mental disorder making sexual reoffense substantially probable, revocation of conditional release has a lower threshold—the State only must show violation of release conditions. This significantly affects SVP respondents in the community, as release violations (particularly dishonesty and non-disclosure of sexual thoughts) can result in re-commitment without a complete re-adjudication of dangerousness.
The case underscores Illinois courts’ approach to balancing rehabilitation with public safety in the SVP context. Even absent new criminal conduct, persistent deception about sexual arousal and fantasies—core risk factors courts and treatment providers monitor—justifies institutional re-commitment. The decision also validates the evidentiary weight given to treatment provider and case management testimony regarding compliance and risk, and signals that conditional release is not a guaranteed pathway to unconditional freedom but remains subject to meaningful supervision and revocation based on behavioral patterns indicating treatment failure.