2020 IL App (2d) 180024
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Defendant Patrick J. Wilber was charged with two counts of harassment by electronic communication for threatening Clarence and Carol Reineke by text.
- On October 2016 a fitness issue was raised; the trial court found a bona fide doubt and, after a fitness hearing, entered an order on May 2, 2017, finding Wilber unfit and he appealed that interlocutory order.
- Wilber was later restored to fitness on August 30, 2017; he discharged counsel, waived a jury, and elected to represent himself.
- While the unfitness appeal was still pending, the trial court conducted a bench trial on November 7, 2017; Wilber was convicted on both counts and sentenced to one year conditional discharge and a $10 fine.
- On direct appeal the appellate court held that because the unfitness appeal was pending when the trial occurred, the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; the convictions were vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence Wilber while an interlocutory appeal of an unfitness finding was pending | State: jurisdiction revested because defendant participated in post-restoration proceedings (revestment); alternatively, defendant invited error by consenting to proceed | Wilber: pending unfitness appeal divested trial court of jurisdiction even after restoration to fitness | Court: Trial court lacked jurisdiction; convictions void; vacated and remanded (follow Elsholtz) |
| Whether the revestment doctrine returned jurisdiction to the trial court | State: active participation by defendant after restoration revested jurisdiction | Wilber: revestment does not apply because the unfitness order was not a final judgment and appellate review remained pending | Court: Revestment doctrine inapplicable here; it applies narrowly to post-judgment time-bar situations, not pending appeals |
| Whether defendant waived the jurisdictional defect by consenting or abandoning his appeal (invited-error / mootness / abandonment) | State: defendant’s participation and restoration mooted the appeal and/or shows abandonment; invited-error bars appeal | Wilber: subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived; he repeatedly stated his appeal remained pending | Court: Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived; invited-error and mootness arguments fail; record shows appeal was not abandoned |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Elsholtz, 136 Ill. App. 3d 209 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985) (trial while unfitness appeal pending divests trial court of jurisdiction)
- People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291 (Ill. 2003) (orders rendered without subject-matter jurisdiction are void)
- People v. Bannister, 236 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2009) (explains revestment doctrine and active participation principle)
- People v. Carter, 208 Ill. 2d 309 (Ill. 2003) (describes invited-error doctrine)
- Wierzbicki v. Gleason, 388 Ill. App. 3d 921 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (revestment doctrine should be applied narrowly)