People v. Mutesha, 980 N.E.2d 764

Mutesha was convicted of aggravated battery to a peace officer (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(18)).
A prior unfitness determination was on appeal when the trial court ruled on posttrial motions and imposed sentence.
The trial court ordered a fitness evaluation after a 129-page posttrial motion raised, among other things, issues about fairness and witnesses.
Dr. Anthony Latham found Mutesha unfittish to cooperate with counsel and recommended commitment; a fitness hearing followed.
Mutesha was restored to fitness while the unfitness appeal was still pending, and the trial court then ruled on posttrial motions and sentenced him.
The appellate court held that, under Elsholtz, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the posttrial motions and to sentence, as those matters were central to the appeal and not collateral.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to rule on posttrial motions when unfitness appeal pending	Mutesha	Elsholtz applies; trial court exceeded jurisdiction	Trial court lacked jurisdiction; void orders
Effect of restoration to fitness on pending appeal	Appeal mootness affects jurisdiction	Restoration should permit merits review	Restoration did not cure lack of jurisdiction over central issues; orders void
Whether self-representation issue survives jurisdictional defect	Right to self-representation pending mootness	Not resolved due to void orders	No merits ruling; dismissal of appeal; possible future reassertion if remanded

People v. Elsholtz, 136 Ill. App. 3d 209 (1985) (applies when appeal pending to divest trial court of jurisdiction over guilt; fitness-related rulings are not collateral)
Wierzbicki v. Gleason, 388 Ill. App. 3d 921 (2009) (void orders entered during pendency of appeal)
Moenning v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2012 IL App (1st) 101866 (2012) (collateral or supplemental matters; independent of judgment on appeal)