Background
Kristopher Koch was convicted in 2014 of three counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse involving children. As he neared the end of his prison sentence in 2022, the State sought his civil commitment under Illinois’s Sexually Violent Persons Act. A jury found Koch to be a sexually violent person (SVP), and he did not directly appeal that judgment.
At the SVP trial, the State’s psychologist, Dr. Tetyana Kostyshyna, diagnosed Koch with several disorders and concluded that he was substantially probable to commit future sexual violence. Her evaluation relied on Koch’s convictions, other reported sexual conduct, his reported violence and aggression, records, and risk assessments. Koch’s experts disagreed and opined that he was not an SVP.
In 2024, Koch filed a section 2-1401 petition seeking relief from the SVP judgment. He attached an affidavit from his former wife, Jennifer, disputing or qualifying parts of information attributed to her. The circuit court found Koch had acted diligently in obtaining the affidavit but ruled that it did not establish a meritorious defense, and denied relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed. It held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Koch’s section 2-1401 petition because Jennifer’s affidavit did not establish facts that would have prevented the original SVP judgment.
The court stressed that Koch could not use the appeal from the postjudgment ruling to challenge the underlying jury finding directly, because he had not appealed that judgment. The relevant question was only whether the new affidavit supported the required meritorious defense.
Jennifer’s affidavit affected only limited portions of the evidence considered by Dr. Kostyshyna. The psychologist had testified that even a complete recantation by Jennifer would alter only the fetishistic-disorder diagnosis, not her other diagnoses or her ultimate SVP opinion, which rested on substantial evidence from other sources. Jennifer also continued to acknowledge physical abuse and Koch’s interest in women’s lingerie. Given the broader trial record, her affidavit did not undermine the basis for the SVP finding.
Key Takeaways
- A section 2-1401 petition must show a meritorious defense, along with diligence requirements.
- A postjudgment petition cannot substitute for an unfiled direct appeal from the original SVP judgment.
- New or recanting evidence does not warrant relief when it affects only a limited part of the evidence and does not undermine the judgment’s independent bases.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the narrow role of section 2-1401 in SVP proceedings. A later affidavit disputing prior information is insufficient when the original expert conclusion and jury finding remain supported by substantial independent evidence.
This Rule 23 order is nonprecedential except as allowed by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1).