2014 IL App (1st) 131950
THIRD DIVISION August 27 , 2014
No. 1

- 13

- 1950 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff

- Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 12 MC1 197585 ) CARMELITA MADISON, ) Honorable

Defendant

- Appellant. ) Michael B. McHale, ) Judge Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court with opinion. J ustice s Neville and Mason concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION ¶ 1 Def

endant

- appellant, Carmelita Madison, appeals from an order entered by the circuit court of Cook County fin ding her unfit to stand trial

. On appeal, Madison contends that the State failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate her lack of fitness , and she argues a number of grounds for reversing the finding of unfitness

. A fter Madison’s notice of appeal was fil ed in this case, she was found fit to stand trial with med ication

. The State does not respond to Madison ’s arguments on the merits and instead co ntend s that her a ppeal is moot

. The State maintain s tha t because Madison has now been found fit to stand trial, this court is unable to afford her any relief and the appeal should be dismissed

. We agree that Madison's appeal is moot and dismiss this appeal

. ¶ 2 BACKGROUND ¶ 3 Madison was charged with one count of misdemeanor battery after she allegedly struck the victim in the face on April 19, 2012

. On June 29, 2012, the trial court ordered a behavi oralNo. 1

- 13

- 1950

2

clinical examination for Madison

. On September 11 , 2012, Dr. Erick Neu, a license d clinical psychologist with Cook County Forensic Clinical Services, evaluated Madison and concluded th at she was unfit to stand trial and that she “suffered from a psychotic disorder and her symptoms were of sufficient severity to significantly impede her ability to assist in her defense.” ¶ 4 On Januar y 31, 2013, the trial court ordered a second examination to be conducted by an evaluator other than Dr. Neu , because more than 45 days had passed since Dr. Neu’s report

. See 725 ILCS 5/104

- 16(a) (West 2012)

. ¶ 5 The evaluation was assigned to Dr. Christofer C ooper , who first met wi th Madison on Februar y 28, 2013

. The evaluation lasted only 20 minutes because Madison declined to participate

. After answering some initial questions, Madison refused to continue the evaluation because she claimed that Dr. Cooper did not have her academic transcripts dating back to college and that without them, Dr. Cooper would not be able to “understand her language or accurately diagnose her.” Shortly after her initial meeting with Dr. Cooper, Madison sent a letter to Dr. Cooper’s office. The lengthy le tter expressed Madison ’s complaints about the initial evaluation,
contained vari ous comments about her Judeo

- Christian beliefs, and asked that Dr. Cooper read

a ll of her academic transcripts

. In her letter, M adison expressed her belief that Dr. Cooper must “black out all theological, philosophical ref erences” in her file because Madison believed that Judge Gloria Chevere already “found me guilty based upon her prejudice.” ¶ 6 Madison failed t o appear for her second appointment with Dr. Cooper scheduled for March 25, 2013

. Before her third appointment scheduled for April 16, 2013, Dr. Cooper received
a CD

- ROM containing Madison’s various academic tra nscripts , which he reviewed in preparation for the April 16 evaluation

. But when Dr. Cooper met with Madison o n April 16, 2013, the evaluation only lasted about 10 minutes

. Dr. Cooper told Madison that he had receivedNo. 1

- 13

- 1950

3

and re viewed her academic transcripts , but she demanded that Dr. Cooper take out her records and review them with her

. Dr. Cooper told Madison that he was seeking information directly from her, not from her records, and that he wanted to ask her questions

. Madison then refused to answer any more questions or to participate in the evaluation

. Dr. Cooper was unable to ask Madison if she understood the f unction of a trial or whether she would be able to rationally assist her attorney in preparing her defense. ¶ 7 After the April 1 6, 2013 evaluation, Madison sent Dr. Cooper a second letter

. In that letter, Madison stated that she “boldly, angrily and self

- righteously rendered a statement that I truly presented to you as having psychiatric mental illness.” Madison also wrote , “I dismissed my adult presence before you and proceeded as if I was nothing. Is this not so? You, sir, are not who you think you are.” Madison als o wrote the victim an 18

- page letter stating that , “[the victim] , the Pope and the President were involved in sex trafficking of Black children in her neighborhood.” Based on everything that Dr. Cooper reviewed, includi ng Dr. Neu’s report, Madison’s letters , the police report, and the misdemeanor complaint, as well as his two attempted evaluations of Madison, Dr. Cooper stated that his “clinica l concerns are that [Madison ] suffers from a mental illness, specifically a psychotic or delusiona l mental illness and that this presents possible concerns regarding her fitness to stand trial.” ¶ 8 On May 9, 2013, the trial court conducted a fitness hearing

. Dr. Cooper test ified that he was unable to proffer a clinical opinion as to whether or not Ma dison was fit to stand trial, because she had refused to p articipate in the evaluation

. Dr. Cooper expressed “clinical concerns” regarding Madison’s fitness for trial based on all of the information available to him

. After hearing Dr. Cooper’s testimony an d considering the parties’ arguments, t he trial court found Madison unfit to stand trial

. The trial court disagreed with defense counsel’s argument thatNo. 1

- 13

- 1950

4

there was no evidence of unfitness, noting Dr. Cooper’s clinical concerns regarding an underlying paran oid delusional ideation

. The trial court also stated that based on the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (see 725 ILCS 5/104

- 14(c) (West 2012)) , the court was allowed to consider Madison ’s continued refusal to cooperate with any of the Forensic Clinical S ervices’ evaluations

. The court ordered Madison committed to the Department of Human Services for
in patient treatment

. On May 10, 2013, defense counsel filed a motion to reconsider the finding of unfitness and t he ruling committing Madison to inpatient treatment

. The trial court denied the motion to recon sider the fitness finding , but granted the motion to allow Madison to undergo outpatient treatment. ¶ 9 Several months later, Madison was again evaluated by Dr. Neu

. Although Madison
repor ted that she had not taken her prescribed psychotropic medication for several weeks, Dr. Neu nevertheless concluded that she was fit to stand trial in that she displayed an understanding of the role of various courtroom personnel, understood the charges ag ainst her and appeared able to cooperate with defense counsel

. At a later restoration hearing, the parties stipulated to Dr. Neu's findings and the trial court found Madison fit to stand trial. ¶ 10 ANALYSIS ¶ 11 In this appeal, Madison challe n ges the trial court’s finding that she wa s not fit to stand trial

. B ecause Madison was found fit to stand trial during the pendency of this appeal, the issue of her f itness is now moot

. Nevertheless, Madison argues that the issue presented by her appeal falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine that would allow for appellate review of the tri al court’s finding of unfitness

. Whether this appeal is moot presents a question of law

. See In re Alfred H.H. , 233 Ill. 2d 345, 350 (2009).No. 1

- 13

- 1950

5

¶ 12 Generally, a party resisting a finding of mootness has the burden to show an exception to the mootness doctrine on at least one of three grounds: that the case falls into the category of one that is “capable o f repetition but evading review ” ; that the case involves an issue of great public importance; or that there are collateral consequences of the order appealed from such that it

" could return to plague the [ defendant ] in some future proceedings or could affect other aspects of [ the defendant’s ] life. " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Holt , 2013 IL App (2d)
120476 , ¶ 4 , appeal allowed , No. 116989 ( Ill. Jan. 29, 2014)

. Madison relies on the last exception in this case, contending that even if this appeal is moot, review is nonetheless appropriate under the collateral consequences excepti on to the mootness doctrine

. Madison contends that the finding that she was unfit to stand t rial has collateral consequences in that (i) it could p revent h er from obtaining a f irearm o wners’ i dentification (FOID) card or obtaining licensure in a number of professions ; (ii) it could be used in other proceedin gs to undermine her credibility; and (i ii) the medication that has restored her to fitness imposes ongoing financial and physical burdens. ¶ 13 T he collateral consequences doctrine allows for appellate review after a court order has ceased to be effective if the party seeking review has suffered, or is threatened with, an actual injury that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision

. In re Alfred H.H. , 233 Ill. 2d 345, 361 (2009)

. While our s up reme c ourt has recognized that reversal of a me ntal health admission or treatment order could provide a “host o f potential legal benefits,” it concluded that application of the collateral consequences exception must be decided on a case

- by

- case basis and that the finding of collateral consequences has to be tailored to the facts of each case

. Id. at 362. ¶ 14 The supreme court further clarified the mootness doctrine and its three exceptions in In re
Rita P. , 2014 IL 115798

. In Rita P. , r espondent’s psychiatrist f iled a petition seeking a courtNo. 1

- 13

- 1950

6

order allowing the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication

. Rita P. , 2014 IL 115798, ¶ ¶ 1

- 4

. The ci rcuit court granted the involuntary treatment order and set a treatment period of 90 days. Id. ¶ 23

. Respondent filed a notice of appeal, seeking rev ersal of the trial court’s treatment order. Id. ¶ 24

. During the pendency of the appeal, the treatment order expired. Id

. This court reviewed the case under the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine and reversed the trial court’s treatment order. Id. ¶ 25. ¶ 15 The State requested the supreme c ourt to vacate the appellate court’s judgment, arguing
that “ no per se exception to the mootness doctrine applies to first involuntary treatment orders, or mental health cases generally, and that the appellate court should have dismissed respondent’s appeal as moot. ” Id. ¶ 30

. The supreme c ourt agreed and held that “ a reviewing court must consider all the relevant facts and legal issues raised in the appeal before d eciding whether the exception applies .” Id. ¶ 34

. The c ourt concluded that application of the collateral consequences exception cannot rest upon the lone fact that no prior involuntary admission or treatment order was entered, or upon a vague, unsupported statement that collateral consequences might plague the respondent in the future. Id. Rather, the collateral consequences must be identifiable and stem solely from the present adjudication. Id. The supreme c ourt explained:

“ Although amicus curiae argues that a first involuntary commitment or treatment order should always satisfy the collateral consequences exception, we adhere to our decision in Alfred H.H. and decline to adopt a blanket rule of appealability in such cases. Appellate court opinions that hold otherwise, including th e opinion below, are overruled. ” Id. ¶ 16 As a threshold matter, a ll of Madison's arguments regarding collateral c onsequences overlook the fact that before the hearing at which the trial court found her unfit to stand trial, sheNo. 1

- 13

- 1950

7

had already been determined to be unfit by Dr. Neu

. Madison never sought to contest Dr. Neu's determination that she was unfit to stand trial and because that finding will remain reg ardless of the outcome of this appeal, it is unclear how resolution of the issues Madison raises could alleviate any of the claimed collateral consequences she identifies

. Nevertheless, we will address whether the collateral consequences exception applies here. ¶ 17 Madison ’s first argument that she will be unable to apply for a FOID card or pursue various professional licenses is insufficient to bring this case within the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine

. Madison is a 66

- year - old female who has been receiving

s ocial s ecurity d isability b enefits since 2002; her disability benefits converted into retirement benefits once she turned 66

. If a finding of unfitness will alway s hinder a party's ability to obtain a FOID card or pursue certain prof essions, then as a matter of law, such orders would always have collateral consequences and, therefore, would never be moot

. But such reasoning runs counter to the holdings of In re Alfred H.H and In re Rita P

. We note that People v. Holt, 201 3 IL App (2d) 120476 , cited by Madison, was decided before In re Rita P

. I ts reasoning

— t hat t he potential inability to obtain a FOID card is a collateral consequence sufficient to save an appeal from mootness

— we believe, runs afoul of In re Rita P

. b ecause there is no indication that Madison is interested in owning a firearm or pursuing any licensed profession , and predicating an exception to the mootness doctrine on such collateral co nsequences is purely speculative

. ¶ 18 Madison’s second argument th at a finding of unfitness may affect the assessment of her credibility in other proceedings is likewise insufficient to bring this case within the collateral consequences exception because it, too, is purely speculative

. Madison identifies no other proceedings in which her credibility is at issue and the possibility of her involvement in such proceedings in the future is, like her first argument, purely speculative.No. 1

- 13

- 1950

8

¶ 19 Madison's third argument focuses on the fin ancial and physical burdens imposed by the medication that has restored her to fitness

. But as the State points out, the order Madison appealed from does not require her to take medication; it only referred her for treatment

. Further , the record reflects that in connection with her evaluatio n before the restoration hearing at which Madison was found fit to stand trial, she reported to Dr. Neu that she had not been taking her medications for several weeks

. Notwithstanding the cessation of her medication, Dr. Neu found Madison fit to stand tria l

. Thus, as far as the record shows, Madison, by her own voluntary act, has alleviated any arguable collateral consequ ences even secondarily related to the trial court's finding of unfitness

. ¶ 20 CONCLUSION ¶ 21 Because Madison has been found fit to stand trial and has failed to demonstrate that the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine applies , we find this appeal moot

. ¶ 22 Appeal dismissed.