People v. Washington
2017 IL App (4th) 150054
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Alexandria Washington was charged with two misdemeanor counts of resisting/obstructing officers and repeatedly contested the court’s jurisdiction, filing numerous pro se documents.
- At arraignment she waived counsel and insisted on proceeding pro se, refusing to plead; the court set multiple hearings on jurisdiction and motions.
- After continued jurisdictional fixation, the trial court raised fitness concerns and, in November 2014, found a bona fide doubt as to defendant’s fitness and ordered a psychiatric evaluation.
- The court did not appoint counsel after recognizing the bona fide doubt; defendant continued to appear pro se at subsequent status and the January 2015 fitness hearing.
- A psychologist testified the defendant was unfit; the court found defendant unfit and then—over her objection—appointed the public defender.
- Defendant appealed, arguing the court erred by failing to appoint counsel once a bona fide doubt as to fitness arose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant who validly waived counsel may continue pro se after the court finds a bona fide doubt as to fitness | The State conceded the court erred by not appointing counsel after bona fide doubt arose and asked for remand for a new hearing with counsel appointed | Washington argued the court should have respected her pro se waiver and that post-doubt appointment was unnecessary | Where a bona fide doubt of fitness exists, a defendant cannot validly waive counsel; the court must appoint counsel (even over objection) until fitness is restored; reversal and remand for a new fitness hearing with counsel appointed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rath, 121 Ill. App. 3d 548 (Ill. App. 1984) (court held appointment of counsel required after bona fide doubt of fitness; defendant cannot proceed pro se)
- United States v. Purnett, 910 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1990) (reasoned that a bona fide doubt of competence prevents a valid waiver of counsel)
- People v. Esang, 396 Ill. App. 3d 833 (Ill. App. 2009) (confirming reversal is required when a defendant is allowed to self-represent despite bona fide competence doubt)
- In re Torski C., 395 Ill. App. 3d 1010 (Ill. App. 2009) (constitutional questions of law, including Sixth Amendment issues, reviewed de novo)