People v. Holt
2013 IL App (2d) 120476
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Mary M. Holt was charged with resisting a peace officer, disorderly conduct, and later criminal trespass to a residence; earlier guilty plea to resisting was withdrawn.
- The State raised a bona fide doubt as to Holt’s fitness to stand trial and ordered a fitness evaluation.
- At the fitness hearing the State conceded it could not prove Holt was fit; the State’s expert (Timothy Brown) testified Holt was unfit.
- Defense counsel moved for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s case; the trial court granted the motion and found Holt unfit, and ordered inpatient treatment with a likelihood of attaining fitness within one year.
- While the appeal was pending Holt was later found fit, but the appellate court proceeded because the unfitness finding and treatment order could carry ongoing stigma and legal consequences (e.g., firearm restrictions).
- Holt argued on appeal that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to advocate her expressed wish to be found fit and instead seeking a finding of unfitness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s conduct at the fitness hearing denied effective assistance | State: burden was on State to prove fitness; defense counsel properly tested State’s case | Holt: counsel failed to assert her position that she was fit and sought a verdict finding unfitness | Counsel’s performance was not deficient; obtaining a directed verdict against the State’s conceded burden was meaningful adversarial testing |
| Whether a defendant’s expressed preference to be found fit binds counsel’s strategy | Court/State: counsel may exercise professional judgment when bona fide doubt exists | Holt: counsel should have deferred to her desire to be found fit | Court: no authority requires counsel to follow a defendant’s wish to be found fit; counsel may act contrary to client if necessary to protect due process |
| Whether counsel must call defendant to testify to assert competence | State: counsel not required to call defendant; may choose strategy | Holt: implied that counsel should have elicited her testimony of fitness | Court: calling the defendant is not mandatory; counsel may reasonably decide whether to call witness to protect client’s rights |
| Whether the case is moot because Holt was later found fit | State: despite factual change, stigma and collateral consequences justify review | Holt: later finding of fitness renders appeal moot | Court: exception to mootness applies; appellate review allowed due to potential lasting effects |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McCallister, 193 Ill. 2d 63 (due process prohibits conviction of an unfit defendant)
- In re Charles H., 409 Ill. App. 3d 1047 (mootness exception when unfitness finding can have lasting stigma)
- In re Val Q., 396 Ill. App. 3d 155 (same mootness/stigma principle)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (failure to subject prosecution to meaningful testing can relieve prejudice showing)
- People v. Lewis, 75 Ill. App. 3d 560 (ethical duty of counsel regarding fitness issues to ensure fair determination)
- People v. Brown, 31 Ill. 2d 415 (counsel’s duties when client’s sanity is at issue)
- People v. Bolden, 160 Cal. Rptr. 268 (counsel may act contrary to client’s expressed wish when client’s competence is doubtful)