*1 knowingly pled guilty. statute for the offense to which rights Apprendi. judg- were not violated under constitutional County is affirmed. ment of circuit court Peoria Affirmed. HOMER, JJ., concur. ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, TONY
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CLEER, Defendant-Appellant. D.
Third District No. 3 — 01—0163 Rehearing April Opinion filed denied March 2002 .
LYTTON, EJ., concurring. Carusona, Office, Ottawa, Peter A. Appellate ap- of State Defender’s for pellant. (John Danner, Attorney, Nancy Edward State’s of Lewiston X. Breslin Carter, Attorneys Office,
Rink both of Appellate State’s Prosecutor’s counsel), People. for the JUSTICE delivered the the court: Following trial, defendant, Cleer, bench Tony D. was found ill of three aggravated discharge counts of of a (720 (West 2000)) firearm ILCS possession and unlawful of a 5/24 —1.2 (720 (West 2000)). weapon aby felon ILCS The trial court 5/24 —1.1 sentenced the defendant to years prison concurrent sentences of 20 for one count of discharge years for firearm and possession unlawful weapon. of a On appeal, the defendant (see that the trial court did proper hearing not conduct a 2000)). (West We remand for a new fitness 5/104 —16 proceedings opinion. consistent
FACTS charged defendant was of aggravated with three counts dis- (720
charge firearm, of a one count of armed violence ILCS 5/33A—2 (West 2000)) and one count of unlawful of a trial, felon. Prior to requesting defendant filed a motion a evaluation and on the issue of his fitness to stand trial. motion, defense counsel averred that the defendant had been receiving psychiatric number treatment of years and that he was currently taking prescribed by medication health expert. mental effectively to com- stated that the defendant was not able own defense and that counsel believed
municate and assist to fitness to there doubt as the defendant’s stand fit- object the motion. The trial court allowed the The State did Chapman to psychiatrist Robert exam- appointed ness evaluation and ine the defendant. A Chapman examined the defendant on November the doctor
psychological report opined was filed with the court which 12, 2000, the the defendant was fit. On December defendant that At on violation. alleging a motion to dismiss fit- that the issue of the defendant’s motion, the State indicated that Dr. Chapman still unresolved. Defense counsel noted ness was inquiry from the counsel conceded Upon fit to stand trial and withdrew defendant was mov- The court concluded that “the a further on matter. of fitness. ant has his motion for a issue withdrawn He is found is in favor of the defendant. The issue of fitness resolved fit trial.” to stand 22, 2000, he trial, May
At police officer day, Later that he noticed a altercation with his wife. inside house running from barn his house. Defendant went shotgun and upstairs handgun. room and loaded a He *3 handgun through out the window and fired one shot pointed the shooting he was The at the time of the trees. He was not sure whether took taking psychotropic medications. it, he take he failed to would day question. medication on When leaning that he was flip.” Officer Stevenson testified “completely dust or debris gunshot He heard and noticed squad inside his car. top squad flying over the of car. armed violence but the defendant of acquitted court sentencing, the trial all counts. At
him ill on other aggravated two counts of judgment of conviction for court vacated remaining on the discharge of a firearm. The defendant was sentenced discharge of a firearm and unlawful count of a felon.
ANALYSIS failing to by court erred that the trial as to his fitness doubt conduct a fitness once fide his claim the defendant waived State contends that existed. The and did because he withdrew gener rule Although the waiver posttrial raise the issue circumstances, it is rule we note ally applies under such
431 jurisdiction. Farmer, administrative convenience rather People than v. (1995). 194, 165 Ill. 2d 650 goals N.E.2d 1006 “the obtaining just result maintaining body a sound of precedent may Farmer, sometimes override considerations of waiver.” 200, Here, at 650 at N.E.2d we are convinced that the defendant’s claim involves an import issue of sufficient overriding to warrant waiver People Contorno, rule. See v. App. 177, 322 Ill. 3d (2001). 290 merits,
On the
process
the due
clauses of the Illinois and United
States
prohibit
Constitutions
prosecution
of a defendant who is
unfit for
1970,
I,
trial. Ill.
Const.,
§
Const.
art.
VI,
U.S.
amends.
XIV
Generally,
trial court’s decision that a defendant is fit to stand trial
will not be reversed absent an
Newell,
abuse of discretion. People v.
(1990).
App.
373,
196 Ill.
3d
raised, the trial court
duty
has a
to hold a
People v.
65,
(1997);
N.E.2d 820
People v. Haynes, 174 Ill.
2d
In the instant the defense counsel raised the issue of the defendant’s fitness to stand trial in a request for a fitness evaluation 11(a) (West 2000). and hearing. See 725 ILCS Upon accepting 5/104— the motion and appointing a qualified expert, the trial implicitly concluded that a bona doubt as to the defendant’s fitness did ex fide (West 2000). ist. See 725 11(b),(c) Once a bona doubt 5/104 — of the defendant’s raised, fitness was the trial court *4 obligated was conduct a hearing. fitness See Griffin, 687 N.E.2d Haynes, on the speedy-trial motion, the defendant stated
that the court-appointed expert found the defendant fit to stand trial. contrary presented no evidence the conceded trial making independent finding, issue. Without
permitted the defendant to withdraw his motion for a fitness doing, the court the defendant fit to stand trial. In so failed independent analysis of the doctor’s in we must finding its discretion process rights due were violated. See conclude that defendant’s Ill. 2d faced court was with an We realize unequivocal dilemma. with defendant’s unfortunate Presented request motion for a the court dismissed the to withdraw fact, question conducting inquiry. fitness further a dis- without However, light to be appeared only missal available resolution. disposition improper. principles, of the such a above-cited and, if therefore remand the cause new We necessary, a new
Remanded with directions.
HOMER, J., concurs. LYTTON, concurring: PRESIDING JUSTICE Although defendant’s counsel withdrew matter, for hearing. he never withdrew his motion court for a decision on fitness at the asking seemed to be incorrectly trial court hearing on and found the de found that the defendant had withdrawn motion Chapman’s report already been fendant fit. had read the doctor’s presume must that the trial court
court. We Thus, decision on fitness report. appears it that the court made its in the confusion record based the evidence the record. the outcome too happening at the renders about what was in People raised considering process requirements vague, due Griffin, 178 Ill. jurisdic- retain
Therefore, majority I that this court agree with the allowing retrospective a limited remand for matter while tion of the