Case ID: ill-app-3d_2/html/0437-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Sepanek, Defendant-Appellant.
    (No. 71-159;
    Second District
    — November 19, 1971.
    Ralph Ruebner, of Defender Project, of Elgin, for appellant.
    Jack Hoogasian, State’s Attorney, of Waukegan, for the People.
   Mr. JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON

delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant, James Sepanek, was indicted for the offenses of attempted murder (two counts) and aggravated battery and the public defender was appointed to defend him. On January 14, 1971, a jury was impanelled to determine if he was competent to stand trial pursuant to a petition brought by the state under section 104 — 2 of the Criminal Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 104 — 2.) At the conclusion of the hearing, the jury returned a verdict that the defendant was incompetent and he was so adjudged and committed to the Department of Mental Health.

On January 19, 1971, the defendant indicated that he would appeal the judgment order and the district defender of the Illinois Defender Project was appointed to represent him for that purpose. On July 20, 1971, the Illinois Defender Project moved to withdraw on the grounds that the appeal was frivolous. A copy of that motion was furnished to the defendant together with our order that he file any additional matters that may have been meritorious on his behalf on or before August 27. The defendant has failed to file anything further.

A judgment order finding a defendant incompetent to stand trial is not a final judgment. (People v. Williams (Ill.App.2d), 266 N.E.2d 145; People v. Cornelius, 332 Ill.App. 271.) It is also not a finding entitled to an interlocutory appeal under the Supreme Court Rules. People v. Williams, ibid.; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 110A, par. 307.

Accordingly, the motion of the Defender Project to withdraw is granted and the appeal dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

GUILD and SEIDENFELD, JJ., concur.