2020 IL App (1st) 171720-U 

 FOURTH DIVISION

 June 30, 2020 

No. 1-17-1720 

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent 

by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v.

DEANDRE MINOR, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Cook County

No. 13 CR 16846 

Honorable 

Michael B. McHale, 

Judge Presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE REYES delivered the judgment of the court. 

Presiding Justice Gordon and Justice Lampkin concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a 

continuance for a fitness examination to determine whether a bona fide doubt 

existed as to his fitness to stand trial where (1) the trial court had already ordered 

a fitness examination and held a fitness hearing the same day and (2) the trial 

court found that the motion was a dilatory tactic. 

¶ 2 Following a jury trial, defendant Deandre Minor was found guilty of home invasion, 

residential burglary, attempted first degree murder, and attempted aggravated criminal sexual 
1-17-1720 

- 2 -

assault of the victim, K.C. The trial court sentenced defendant to 30 years’ imprisonment for 

home invasion, consecutive to 30 years’ imprisonment for attempted first degree murder, and 12 

years’ imprisonment for attempted aggravated criminal sexual assault, to be served concurrently 

with 12 years’ imprisonment for residential burglary and consecutively with the other counts. 

The trial court denied defendant’s motion to reconsider sentence. Defendant’s sole contention on 

appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to grant him a continuance to 

obtain an evaluation from a psychologist regarding his fitness to stand trial. While defendant 

acknowledges that a fitness examination and hearing had been conducted, he maintains that it 

was inadequate where defendant was exhibiting “suicidal behavior” and the examination lasted 

only 10 minutes. Accordingly, defendant requests this court reverse the judgment of the trial 

court and remand for a new trial. As the trial court ordered a fitness examination, conducted a 

fitness hearing, and determined defendant was fit to stand trial, we affirm the judgment of the 

circuit court. 

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Defendant was charged by indictment for numerous counts of home invasion, residential 

burglary, attempted aggravated criminal sexual assault, and attempted first degree murder based 

on the allegations that he unlawfully entered the victim’s home on August 9, 2013, and 

knowingly attempted to commit an act of sexual penetration on the victim while strangling her. 

Defendant was arraigned and appointed a public defender. 

¶ 5 In October 2014, defense counsel requested the trial court order a behavioral clinical 

examination (BCX) regarding defendant’s fitness to stand trial and his sanity at the time of the 

offense, which the trial court granted. Defendant was examined by Dr. Christofer Cooper, the 

Chief of Psychology at Forensic Clinical Services, on two separate occasions in November 2014. 
1-17-1720 

- 3 -

Dr. Cooper opined that defendant was fit to stand trial. According to Dr. Cooper, although 

defendant was “marginally cooperative with the evaluation, he is not manifesting symptoms of a 

mental condition that would preclude his fitness at the present time.” Dr. Cooper found 

defendant “is aware of the types of charges pending against him and is familiar with the roles of 

various courtroom personnel” and that “[h]e demonstrates sufficient understanding of the nature 

and purpose of legal proceedings.” Accordingly, Dr. Cooper concluded that he is “capable of 

rationally assisting counsel in his own defense, if he so chooses; any observations to the contrary 

should not be viewed as the product of a primary mental illness.” 

¶ 6 Dr. Nishad Nadkarni, a supervising psychiatrist at Forensic Clinical Services, also offered 

an opinion regarding defendant’s fitness to stand trial. In a report dated December 2, 2014, Dr. 

Nadkarni concluded defendant was fit to stand trial based on his review of defendant’s medical 

records and his clinical interview, that defendant “demonstrates an understanding of the charges 

against him, comprehends the nature of courtroom proceedings, and correctly identifies the roles 

of various courtroom personnel.” In addition, Dr. Nadkarni stated that “defendant demonstrates 

an adequate capacity to fully assist counsel in his defense and to maintain appropriate courtroom 

demeanor, if he so chooses.” Dr. Nadkarni further stated that, “There is no evidence that the 

defendant suffers from bona fide major mental illness, or cognitive impairment that would 

preclude him from doing so. Any observations to the contrary should be interpreted as volitional 

on the part of the defendant, and secondary to marked character pathology.” Neither Dr. Cooper 

nor Dr. Nadkarni were able to fully evaluate defendant for sanity at the time of the offense due to 

his refusal to cooperate. 

¶ 7 Thereafter, at a December 2014 hearing, defense counsel reported that defendant was 

found fit to stand trial and as a result did not request a fitness hearing. She did, however, 
1-17-1720 

- 4 -

indicate that she was still pursuing an evaluation regarding defendant’s sanity at the time of the 

offense. In March 2015, defense counsel indicated sanity was no longer an issue and it was not 

raised again during the course of the proceedings. 

¶ 8 Then, in July 2015, defendant requested to proceed pro se. The trial court entered and 

continued the matter for ten days so defendant could consider his request in light of the 

admonishments previously provided. At the following court date, in August, defendant renewed 

his request to proceed pro se, was admonished accordingly, and the trial court found him to have 

freely, knowingly, and intelligently made the request. The trial court thus granted the motion 

and the public defender was granted leave to withdraw. 

¶ 9 Defendant represented himself for seven months. On the date the jury trial was originally 

set to begin, defendant requested the assistance of a public defender and one was appointed to 

represent him. Thereafter, at a May 2016 court date, the trial court informed defendant that it 

would conduct the trial even if defendant willingly tried to not come to court. The trial court 

stated, “Because you have a history of self-inflicted wounds [sic]. If you decide to wound 

yourself before trial or on the day of trial, we are going to have a trial whether you are here or 

not. Do you understand?” Defendant indicated he understood. In the four court dates which

followed, defendant refused to come out of lockup when his case was before the court and 

defense counsel waived his presence. 

¶ 10 On January 23, 2017, the first day of the trial, defendant appeared in court and the trial 

court made the following record: 

“All right. Mr. Minor is before the bench. This court should reflect that he is not 

wearing a shirt and he self-inflicted a wound on his right forearm and has apparently 

placed blood all over his face and chest.” 
1-17-1720 

- 5 -

Defendant then introduced himself as “Baby Jesus” and the trial court responded as follows: 

“Mr. Minor has a long history of causing delays from self-inflicted wounds with 

paperclips, which apparently is what he did again this morning. I believe he has already 

been evaluated and found fit for trial. He’s tried to go pro se. He’s decided that he 

wanted a PD. Mr. Minor has a long history of delaying tactics ***. 

* * * 

Nevertheless, again, this is a delaying tactic. And I’m looking for the fitness findings, 

too. I don’t have any bona fide doubt that Mr. Minor has a fitness issue. He knows who 

the parties are. He’s trying to delay this trial.” 

Defense counsel then requested a fitness evaluation “instanter, if necessary.” Defense counsel 

argued that defendant “has inflicted wounds that could be suicidal if he had the proper tools” and 

thus is not able to assist in his defense. The trial court agreed with defense counsel’s suggestion 

to have defendant’s fitness evaluated instanter. 

¶ 11 In addition to ordering a fitness evaluation, the trial court questioned Officer Smith1 of 

the Cook County Sheriff’s Department regarding the nature and treatment of defendant’s selfinflicted wound. According to Officer Smith, the wound was cleaned, but when officers went to 

bandage the wound, defendant refused to allow them to bandage him or clean his face. The trial 

court then asked defendant why he would not allow his face to be cleaned and defendant 

responded, “Because it’s protecting me like that black robe you got on.” 

¶ 12 Shortly thereafter, the trial court examined Dr. Christofer Cooper, an assistant director of 

the Department of Forensic Clinical Services for Cook County. Dr. Cooper testified that he has 

completed approximately 2,000 fitness evaluations and has been qualified as a forensic 

1 Officer Smith’s first name does not appear in the record.
1-17-1720 

- 6 -

psychologist between 245 and 250 times in court. After hearing no questions on Dr. Cooper’s 

qualifications, the trial court certified him as an expert in the field of forensic psychology. 

Dr. Cooper testified he examined defendant that day and on two prior occasions on November 6 

and 18, 2014. In November 2014, he found defendant fit to stand trial. 

¶ 13 Regarding his current examination of defendant, Dr. Cooper testified that he examined 

him in the holding cell behind the courtroom. Defendant was responsive, however he refused to 

offer proper or direct responses to any of the questions posed by Dr. Cooper. Dr. Cooper noted 

defendant’s physical appearance (that blood was smeared on his face) and stated that defendant 

further opened his wound during the examination by biting it. Defendant then asked the officers 

to get him treatment for his wound. Dr. Cooper found this behavior to be done in “a goaldirected and purposeful manner.” 

¶ 14 Dr. Cooper continued that defendant’s responses to questions were “highly oppositional 

and indirect.” Dr. Cooper explained that he asked defendant what he was charged with and 

defendant responded, “going against America” then he spontaneously made comments about 

being “baby Jesus.” After answering a few more questions, Dr. Cooper found defendant’s 

response style to be “goal-directed, intentional, and purposeful” as well as “timed” due to the 

fact it was on the day his jury trial was set to begin. 

¶ 15 When asked by the trial court whether he found any evidence of psychotic or delusional 

thinking, Dr. Cooper replied that while it was difficult to fully assess his presented mental state, 

it was his “clinical impression that his responses and behavior were very much goal-directed. 

There was no indication, in my opinion, of overt and delusional ideation or psychotic 

symptoms.” 

¶ 16 Dr. Cooper further noted that many of defendant’s responses were consistent with his 
1-17-1720 

- 7 -

observations of defendant during his 2014 examination. According to Dr. Cooper, in 2014, 

defendant was “similarly oppositional and profane and refused to fully cooperate.” When asked 

about his 2014 findings regarding defendant, Dr. Cooper explained that he had previously found 

defendant’s speech to be “goal-directed and coherent” and he “became increasingly 

uncooperative.” At the second meeting, defendant repeatedly made oppositional and cynical 

remarks throughout the evaluation and thus his demeanor then was largely consistent with his 

oppositional demeanor, “although more extreme and dramatic today.” Dr. Cooper lastly opined 

that he found defendant fit to stand trial in 2014 as “there was no indication that he was suffering 

from a mental illness or a genuine mental illness that would compromise his fitness on either of 

the two prongs.” In regard to his comment about being the baby Jesus, Dr. Cooper testified that 

he believed it to be malingering or intentional and that it was not the product of mental illness 

but rather “an intentional or volitional act to try to influence the court proceedings today.” 

¶ 17 Dr. Cooper opined within a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, “despite the 

rather atypical and dramatic circumstances, that Mr. Minor is currently fit to stand trial.” 

Dr. Cooper based this opinion on his direct observation of defendant’s behavior and on his 

history of knowing defendant. When asked whether defendant’s behavior classified as 

“volitional” at this time, Dr. Cooper replied in the affirmative. Dr. Cooper further explained that 

defendant’s current behavior (of sitting in court with his shirt on, buttoned, and his face cleaned) 

was evidence that his behavior was volitional: “That shows that he’s currently capable, if he 

chooses, to behave in an appropriate manner. He’s been, for the most part, quiet throughout my 

testimony to this point. That, to me, demonstrates he has the capacity to behave and comply with 

courtroom proceedings and rules if he were to choose to do so.” Dr. Cooper also testified that 

defendant was capable of assisting counsel in his defense: “There’s nothing that I have seen or 
1-17-1720 

- 8 -

nothing that I’ve reviewed that would suggest that he suffers from a mental illness that would 

significantly compromise his capacity to do so if he were to choose to cooperate.” 

¶ 18 On cross-examination by defense counsel, Dr. Cooper testified that he has not reviewed 

any of defendant’s medical records, did not know how often defendant cuts himself, and was not 

aware of a head trauma defendant may have suffered in January. Dr. Cooper explained, 

however, that defendant’s current behavior is not the byproduct of mental illness or injury as he 

is presently capable of controlling his demeanor. Dr. Cooper further testified that he examined 

defendant for 10 minutes and that his evaluation was terminated due to defendant’s behavior. 

Based on Dr. Cooper’s testimony and the trial court’s own observations, the trial court denied the 

motion to continue the trial.

¶ 19 Defense counsel immediately moved for the trial court to reconsider its ruling, arguing 

that Dr. Cooper’s evaluation was insufficient where he only spent 10 minutes with defendant and 

did not consult any medical records. Defense counsel renewed its motion to continue the case to 

allow a more thorough evaluation or, in the alternative, requested the trial court find defendant 

unfit to proceed. The trial court found Dr. Cooper’s testimony was complete and that his 

testimony was corroborated by defendant’s behavior in the courtroom, i.e., that it was volitional 

and an attempt to delay the trial. 

¶ 20 The matter then proceeded to trial where the following evidence was adduced. The 

victim resided in the Gold Coast neighborhood in Chicago on the fourth floor of an apartment 

building in August 2013. Her 21-year-old son was residing with her at the time. On August 8, 

2013, at 11:30 p.m. the victim went to sleep in her bedroom. Later that evening, she awoke and 

found a muscular man standing in her doorway. She believed it was one of her son’s friends 

who would stay with her from time-to-time and so she went back to sleep. Shortly thereafter she 
1-17-1720 

- 9 -

awoke and found the overhead light was on. She looked to the side and found defendant’s head 

next to her hip. He was looking up at her with “no emotion in his eyes.” The victim had been 

sleeping on her stomach and defendant then pushed her shoulder down into the bed. He climbed 

onto her back and she felt his erect penis rubbing against her buttocks. Defendant then began 

choking her. The victim could not breathe or scream. Defendant told her “you’re just going to 

go to sleep, and you will not feel a thing” and “you’re going to go to sleep and you will not wake 

up.” The victim decided to “play dead” and defendant released his grip from the victim’s throat. 

She was then able to elbow him in the chest and scream. He began choking her again and a 

struggle ensued. The victim could not recall what occurred thereafter until the police arrived. 

¶ 21 The victim’s son, who was awakened from his bed upon hearing screams, entered his 

mother’s bedroom and observed defendant, who was wearing only boxer shorts, on his mother’s 

bed with his hands around her throat. Defendant told him “Get out of here. This doesn’t concern 

you.” The victim’s son left, obtained a knife and a phone, called 911, and locked himself in a 

bathroom. When he heard his mother scream again, the victim’s son attempted to enter the 

bedroom and a “shoving match” with defendant to open the door ensued. After the victim’s son 

was able to gain access to the room, defendant began collecting his clothing and left the 

apartment.

¶ 22 Officer Jankowski of the Chicago Police Department testified he was on routine patrol on 

August 9, 2013, when he responded to the call from the apartment building. At 3:24 a.m. Officer 

Jankowski found defendant behind the lobby desk of the apartment building wearing no shirt and 

in the process of pulling up his pants. Officer Jankowski detained defendant who was thereafter 

identified by the victim and the victim’s son as the intruder. The victim’s blue blouse was also 

found balled up inside one of defendant’s pant legs. Defendant later admitted that he had 
1-17-1720 

- 10 -

removed money from the victim’s purse. In addition, video surveillance footage showed 

defendant entering the victim’s apartment building at 2:55 a.m. According to the victim, the 

attack occurred at 3:11 a.m. Further photographic evidence and testimonial evidence from a 

physician demonstrated the victim suffered wounds on her neck consistent with strangulation. 

¶ 23 Sergeant Michael Scarriot testified he collected evidence from the victim’s apartment 

including two Gatorade bottles and a bloody black and white men’s shirt. Cellular material from 

under the victim’s fingernails was also collected. Defendant, an African American male, 

submitted to a buccal swab and his DNA was compared to the DNA found on the Gatorade 

bottles and cellular material. A forensic scientist determined that defendant’s partial DNA 

profile could not be excluded from one of the Gatorade bottles and that one in two trillion 

African Americans, one in 530 trillion Caucasians, and 1 in 230 trillion Hispanics could have 

contributed the DNA on the Gatorade bottle. The blood found on the men’s shirt was also found 

to match defendant’s DNA profile. Defendant could also not be excluded from being a 

contributor to the DNA discovered in the cellular material from under the victim’s fingernails as 

only 1 in 120,000 African American men, 1 in 3.5 million Caucasian men, 1 in 580,000 Hispanic 

men could have contributed that DNA. 

¶ 24 The State rested and defendant testified as follows. At 3 a.m. on August 9, 2013, he had 

gotten into a fight in the area of the 1300 block of North Sedgwick. He then walked down North 

Avenue toward the Gold Coast area looking for a hotel. He entered the victim’s apartment 

building believing it to be a hotel and took the elevator to the fourth floor. When he got out into 

the hallway, the victim opened her door and invited defendant inside. According to defendant 

there were “100 bottles of wine right there” inside the victim’s apartment. Defendant picked up 

a bottle, opened it, and began drinking from it. He then went into the victim’s bedroom with the 
1-17-1720 

- 11 -

victim and ingested cocaine. The victim kept talking about her son and when she realized that 

defendant did not know her son she began “acting crazy.” The victim jumped up, so he grabbed 

her by the throat, pushed her on the bed, and left the apartment. 

¶ 25 After hearing closing arguments and jury instructions, the jury found defendant guilty of 

home invasion, residential burglary, attempted aggravated criminal sexual assault, and attempted

first degree murder. Defendant moved for a new trial arguing, in pertinent part, that the trial 

court abused its discretion when it failed to continue the trial so a fitness examination could be 

conducted. In denying the motion for a new trial, the trial court took issue with the statements 

made by counsel in the motion for a new trial. The trial court expressly noted that the record did 

not comport with counsel’s statements and that counsel’s statements were exaggerated: 

 “First, turning to paragraph five, subsection A, in which the defense indicates that 

‘Mr. Minor somehow opened up the veins in one of his arms and began bleeding so 

profusely that the walls were covered in blood.’ I myself went into the lockup area to see 

what had happened after he had been taken out. Yes, there was blood. To characterize 

them as covered in blood is a ridiculous over-dramatization. There were drops of blood 

indicating someone had been walking in a path, a trail of blood drops, and in one small 

area there was a larger, small puddle of blood. And it isn’t a mystery to what he did. He 

didn’t somehow open up his arm. He used some sort of metal instrument. And I think 

it’s important to note, because later in the motion here, the next page actually, in 

subsection C, the defense says that ‘The defendant deliberately injured himself in a 

manner that could have easily been fatal.’ There was nothing anything close to fatal by 

what he did. What he did specifically was, if one would hold out their hand, palm facing 

down, the forearm area, the upper area of the forearm, he cut into that. Nowhere was it 
1-17-1720 

- 12 -

near the wrist nor any major veins or arteries or anywhere on the neck. Nothing vital 

about the injury. Which only goes to support the manipulative nature of what he was 

doing in attempting to delay the trial. But nothing fatal about it, and this is not an 

accurate depiction as is presented in this motion. 

As far as his fitness goes, he created his own history in his record of the attempt to 

delay the trial. I rely on the expert testimony of Dr. Cooper. I recall he said he had done 

thousands of evaluations, including instanter evaluations, which was the type he did here 

at trial. He did also have history to rely on, and he noted the appropriate things of his 

testimony, and I do believe that Mr. Minor was fit and still is.” 

¶ 26 The matter then proceeded to a sentencing hearing where evidence was presented in 

aggravation and mitigation. The trial court sentenced defendant to 30 years’ imprisonment for 

home invasion, consecutive to 30 years’ imprisonment for attempted first degree murder, and 12 

years’ imprisonment for attempted aggravated criminal sexual assault, to be served concurrently 

with 12 years’ imprisonment for residential burglary and consecutively with the other counts. 

The trial court denied defendant’s motion to reconsider sentence. This appeal followed. 

¶ 27 ANALYSIS

¶ 28 On appeal, defendant’s sole contention is that the trial court abused its discretion when it 

denied his motion for a continuance to obtain a fitness evaluation. While defendant 

acknowledges that a fitness examination and hearing had been conducted, he maintains that it 

was inadequate where defendant was exhibiting “suicidal behavior” and the examination lasted 

only 10 minutes. Accordingly, defendant requests this court reverse the judgment of the trial 

court and remand for a new trial. 

¶ 29 In response, the State asserts that the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for a 
1-17-1720 

- 13 -

continuance where the trial court found his request was another attempt to delay trial proceedings 

and where it confirmed defendant was fit to stand trial. 

¶ 30 Section 114-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enumerates the grounds for a 

continuance in criminal proceedings. 725 ILCS 5/114-4 (West 2016). Section 114-4(b)(4) 

provides that a continuance is proper where the defendant cannot stand trial because of physical 

or mental incompetency. 725 ILCS 5/114-4(b)(4) (West 2016). All motions for continuance are 

addressed to the discretion of the trial court. 725 ILCS 5/114-4(e) (West 2016); People v. 

Hernandez, 313 Ill. App. 3d 780, 783 (2000). Before a reviewing court finds that a trial court 

abused its discretion in denying a continuance, it must appear, in some manner, that the court’s 

refusal hindered the accused in his defense and thereby prejudiced his rights. People v. Kagan, 

283 Ill. App. 3d 212, 217-18 (1996). 

¶ 31 The denial of a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we may 

not disturb its decision in that respect absent a clear abuse of its discretion. People v. Chapman, 

194 Ill. 2d 186, 241 (2000). In this context, there is no “ ‘mechanical test’ ” to determine 

whether the court’s denial of a continuance violated a defendant’s substantive right. People v. 

Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 125 (2009) (quoting People v. Lott, 66 Ill. 2d 290, 297 (1977)). Rather, 

a reviewing court may look at different factors. These include the defendant’s diligence; his 

right to a speedy, fair and impartial trial; the interests of justice; counsel’s inability to prepare for 

trial; the history of the case; its complexity; the seriousness of the charges; docket management; 

judicial economy; and inconvenience to the parties and witnesses. See Walker, 232 Ill. 2d at 

125-26; People v. Balfour, 2015 IL App (1st) 122325, ¶ 48. Ultimately, the determination of 

whether an abuse of discretion occurred in the trial court’s decision to deny a continuance turns 

on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. See Lott, 66 Ill. 2d at 297. We will find 
1-17-1720 

- 14 -

an abuse of discretion only when the court’s ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or where 

no reasonable person would have taken the court’s view. People v. Banks, 2016 IL App (1st) 

131009, ¶ 70; People v. Weeks, 2011 IL App (1st) 100395, ¶ 30 (quoting Walker, 232 Ill. 2d at 

125 (“[i]n the context of continuances, reversal is warranted where denial of a continuance ‘in 

some manner embarrassed the accused in the preparation of his defense and thereby prejudiced 

his rights’ ”)).

¶ 32 In this case, defendant maintains that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to 

continue the trial for him to obtain another fitness evaluation where his behavior warranted such 

an evaluation and the fitness evaluation he received was inadequate. Specifically, regarding his 

behavior, defendant maintains that he exhibited “suicidal behavior” and was acting irrationally 

where defendant insisted on being present in court “covered in blood” and referred to himself as 

“baby Jesus.” As to the evaluation, defendant asserts it was inadequate because Dr. Cooper 

examined him for 10 minutes and did not review his medical records. 

¶ 33 The due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution 

bars the criminal prosecution of a defendant who is not competent to stand trial. U.S. Const., 

amend. XIV; Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 439 (1992); People v. Mitchell, 189 Ill. 2d 

312, 326 (2000). A defendant is presumed fit to stand trial (725 ILCS 5/104-10 (West 2016)) 

and is entitled to a fitness hearing “only when a bona fide doubt of his fitness to stand trial or be 

sentenced is raised.” People v. McCallister, 193 Ill. 2d 63, 110 (2000) (citing People v. Johnson, 

183 Ill. 2d 176, 193 (1998)). A defendant is unfit “if, because of his mental or physical 

condition, he is unable to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him or to 

assist in his defense.” 725 ILCS 5/104-10 (West 2000). 

¶ 34 There is a bona fide doubt as to defendant’s fitness when there is a “real, substantial and 
1-17-1720 

- 15 -

legitimate doubt” assessed against an objective standard. People v. Eddmonds, 143 Ill. 2d 501, 

518 (1991). Since “fitness” refers only to an ability to function at trial, and not to competence in 

other areas (People v. Easley, 192 Ill. 2d 307, 320 (2000)), “a mental disturbance or an instance 

of psychiatric treatment does not necessarily raise a bona fide doubt of fitness.” People v.

Woodard, 367 Ill. App. 3d 304, 319 (2006); Eddmonds, 143 Ill. 2d at 519. There are “no fixed or 

immutable signs which invariably indicate the need for further inquiry to determine fitness to 

proceed; the question is often a difficult one in which a wide range of manifestations and subtle 

nuances are implicated.” Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 180 (1975). A trial court may 

consider defendant’s irrational behavior, demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on the 

defendant’s competence to stand trial. People v. Harris, 206 Ill. 2d 293, 304 (2002). A 

reviewing court must keep in mind that the trial court had “the best opportunity to observe 

defendant’s behavior and assess its level of propriety.” Woodard, 367 Ill. App. 3d at 320. 

Accordingly, the question of whether a bona fide doubt of fitness exists, like a trial court’s 

determination on a motion to continue, is a fact-specific inquiry (People v. Tapscott, 386 Ill. 

App. 3d 1064, 1077 (2008)) and is a matter within the discretion of the trial court (People v. 

Sandham, 174 Ill. 2d 379, 382 (1996)). 

¶ 35 In the case at bar, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by failing to continue 

the trial for an additional fitness hearing. First, it was defense counsel who requested that a 

fitness evaluation be conducted instanter. The doctrine of invited error provides that “a party 

cannot complain of error which that party induced the court to make or to which that party 

consented. The rationale behind this well-established rule is that it would be manifestly unfair to 

allow a party a second trial upon the basis of error which that party injected into the 

proceedings.” In re Detention of Swope, 213 Ill. 2d 210, 217 (2004). Thus, defendant here 
1-17-1720 

- 16 -

cannot now complain of a procedure that was introduced and accepted by defense counsel. See 

id. (“[Defendant] may not now attack a procedure to which he agreed, even though that 

acceptance may have been grudging.”); People v. Threatte, 2017 IL App (2d) 160161, ¶ 18. 

¶ 36 Second, the trial court stated that it did not believe a bona fide doubt existed as to 

defendant’s fitness, but nonetheless ordered a fitness evaluation and hearing to be conducted. In 

rendering this determination, the record clearly demonstrates that the trial court considered 

defendant’s behavior and found it not to be as serious as defendant suggests. We observe that 

our case law provides that, “while an attempted suicide may indicate a possibility of mental

disorder, the fact of such an attempt will not always suffice of itself to establish a probability that 

the defendant is unable to comprehend his position, understand the nature and object of the 

proceedings against him, or cooperate with his counsel in his own defense.” People v. Heral, 54 

Ill. App. 3d 527, 532 (1977). In ruling on the motion for a new trial, the trial court stated 

defendant’s behavior was not suicidal, noting “There was nothing anything close to fatal by what 

[defendant] did.” The trial court explained, “What he did specifically was, if one would hold out 

their hand, palm facing down, the forearm area, the upper area of the forearm, he cut into that. 

Nowhere was it near the wrist nor any major veins or arteries or anywhere on the neck. Nothing 

vital about the injury.” The trial court found that the placement of the wound was further 

indication that defendant was being manipulative and attempting to delay the trial. As is wellestablished, the trial court is in the best position to observe the defendant’s behavior and assess 

whether a bona fide doubt of fitness exists. See Woodard, 367 Ill. App. 3d at 320. 

¶ 37 Third, the trial court’s determination that defendant was attempting to delay the trial was 

supported by the record. As noted by the State, discovery was complete in October 2014 and, 

after numerous months wherein defendant represented himself, in March 2016 on the day set for 
1-17-1720 

- 17 -

the jury trial, defendant requested a public defender be appointed. Then, ten months later, also

on the first day of trial, defendant appeared in court with an open wound. Moreover, after 

defendant was found fit to stand trial in 2014, no further mention was made of his unfitness. The 

trial court did, however, make mention that defendant should not consider harming himself to

delay the trial. In addition, the expert testimony of Dr. Cooper supported the trial court’s finding 

that the motion to continue was a delay tactic. According to Dr. Cooper, defendant’s behavior 

was “goal-directed,” “purposeful,” “volitional,” and “malingering.” Dr. Cooper expressly 

opined that he believed defendant’s behavior was timed so as to delay the trial.

¶ 38 Fourth, the trial court had its own opportunity to interact with defendant during the threeand-a-half years his case was pending. During that time, defendant was found fit to stand trial 

and represented himself for 7 months. While defendant expressed frustration in his inability to 

have certain resources available to him, in that time he displayed a sufficient understanding of 

the process in the criminal justice system. As a pro se litigant, defendant was able to 

successfully obtain additional discovery he requested and to obtain an order for access to the law 

library. 

¶ 39 Defendant further argues that the fitness evaluation was inadequate where Dr. Cooper 

evaluated him for 10 minutes and did not review his medical records. Defendant points out that 

Dr. Cooper admitted that he could not fully assess defendant’s present mental state. Regarding 

the latter comment, we observe that a “defendant may be competent to participate at trial even 

though his mind is otherwise unsound.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Hanson, 

212 Ill. 2d 212, 224-25 (2004). Dr. Cooper’s testimony indicates that he found defendant was 

competent to stand trial. As noted by the State, Dr. Cooper testified that reading defendant’s 

medical records would not affect his assessment of defendant’s present-day fitness. Moreover, 
1-17-1720 

- 18 -

Dr. Cooper testified that his assessment of defendant’s diagnosis fitness to stand trial was based 

on his direct observation of defendant’s behavior and his history of knowing him. Dr. Cooper 

testified that he examined defendant at length twice in November 2014 and his diagnosis of 

defendant was the same now as it was then. In addition, although the evaluation was 10 minutes 

long, the record reflects it was a sufficient amount of time for Dr. Cooper to obtain an opinion 

regarding defendant’s fitness where Dr. Cooper testified that “there’s nothing that I have seen or 

nothing that I’ve reviewed that would suggest that he suffers from a mental illness that would 

significantly compromise his capacity to do so if he were to choose to cooperate.” Indeed, as 

noted by Dr. Cooper, defendant demonstrated his ability to participate in his defense as reflected 

by his quiet demeanor during Dr. Cooper’s testimony. 

¶ 40 We further observe that the trial court was fully aware that defendant had been examined 

by Dr. Cooper on three separate occasions (twice in November 2014 and once on the day of trial) 

and also by Dr. Nadkarni in December 2014. After December 2014, no issue was raised about 

defendant’s fitness until January 2017, when the trial was set to proceed. Given the fact that 

defendant was examined on four separate occasions and the findings of those evaluations were 

consistent, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant a continuance to 

obtain yet another fitness evaluation. 

¶ 41 Finally, we acknowledge that defendant fails to argue in his briefs that any prejudice 

resulted from the trial court’s failure to order a continuance. See People v. Medina, 239 Ill. App. 

3d 871, 874 (1993) (The party contesting the denial of his motion must establish that the denial 

resulted in prejudice at trial). “Before we can say that the motion was improperly denied it must 

appear that the court’s refusal in some manner embarrassed the accused in his defense and 

thereby prejudiced his rights.” People v. La Fiura, 92 Ill. App. 3d 714, 720 (1981). The record 
1-17-1720 

- 19 -

here demonstrates that defendant was able to participate in his defense. He was able to answer 

the questions posed to him on direct and cross-examination and he testified consistently with his 

consent defense. Defendant’s behavior was also controlled as he made no verbal outbursts 

before the jury and inflicted no self-harm during the trial. Accordingly, in the absence of 

specific evidence demonstrating prejudice, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its 

discretion in denying defendant’s motion. See People v. Steinmetz, 287 Ill. App. 3d 1, 6 (1997). 

¶ 42 CONCLUSION

¶ 43 For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County. 

¶ 44 Affirmed.