NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except 

in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

2024 IL App (3d) 230118-U

Order filed August 8, 2024

____________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

2024 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

ILLINOIS, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

ROMEO A. JONES, ) 

 ) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of the 18th Judicial Circuit, 

Du Page County, Illinois, 

Appeal No. 3-23-0118 

Circuit No. 22-CF-1616 

Honorable 

Daniel P. Guerin, 

Judge, Presiding. 

____________________________________________________________________________

PRESIDING JUSTICE McDADE delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices Peterson and Davenport concurred in the judgment. 

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: (1) The State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not reasonably 

believe his actions were necessary to protect himself or his property. (2) The 

circuit court did not err in determining defendant was fit to stand trial.

¶ 2 Defendant, Romeo A. Jones, appeals his convictions for aggravated battery, arguing that 

the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not reasonably believe his 

actions were necessary to protect himself and his property. Further, defendant argues that the 
2 

Du Page County circuit court erred in finding him fit to stand trial because it did not make an 

independent inquiry during the fitness hearing. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Defendant was charged, inter alia, with two counts of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 

5/12-3.05(d)(4)(i), (h) (West 2022)). These charges alleged that on August 4, 2022, defendant 

knowingly and without legal justification, caused bodily harm or made contact of an insulting 

and provoking nature with Officer John Kozuch while he was performing his official duties as a 

security officer for Glen Oaks hospital. 

¶ 5 Between August and November 2022, defendant made two unsuccessful requests to be 

released on his own recognizance pending trial. On November 3, 2022, defendant again 

requested to be released from the county jail, claiming for the first time that he was being 

harassed and suffering greatly. When asked to elaborate, defendant informed the court that he 

was being harassed by spirits, explaining: “there’s something called a game of life. Apparently, 

it’s a spirit game that they play in elsewhere. People are making money off of me being cut open 

and stuff. People can see me on the outside that ain’t supposed to.” After hearing this, the court 

found a bona fide doubt as to defendant’s fitness and ordered an evaluation. Defendant reiterated 

that he was asking to be released from jail. The court explained that he was not going to release 

him from custody “because some spirits [were] cutting him open.” Defendant then explained that 

the people were, in fact, alive and he had been tortured for months by the situation; however, he 

“fe[lt] a lot better, because [he] was receiving help.” Defendant went on to explain that he could 

not bond out of jail because his state identification card was missing, and he had a hold from 

another county for a missed court date. The court continued the case for a fitness evaluation. 
3 

¶ 6 On November 28, 2022, the court held a fitness hearing. Prior to the hearing, defendant 

renewed his request for release from jail arguing that he had served too long on the charge and 

needed to begin working. He explained to the court that he understood he had failed to appear for

cases in the past but “stay[ed] close by” and would make all his court appearances. The court 

informed defendant that it needed to address his fitness before it could proceed with any other 

matters. 

¶ 7 The fitness report indicated that defendant did not spontaneously report any auditory or 

visual hallucinations and, when directly asked, denied experiencing hallucinations or other 

psychotic symptoms. Medical records from defendant’s current incarceration in jail reflected that 

defendant had previously made peculiar statements. In September 2022, defendant became 

agitated and demanded to be released immediately. The next day, defendant stated “ ‘I was just 

trippin’, I’m fine. Can I get my clothes back?’ ” The day after that, defendant explained that 

“ ‘[his] cell kept flooding, [he] wasn’t suicidal.’ ” The jail psychologist noted that defendant 

received a “ ‘housing change as [a] secondary gain for statements made.’ ” 

¶ 8 Two days prior to the court finding a bona fide doubt, on November 1, 2022, defendant 

was examined when he requested that the jail release him, stating that he was being harassed and 

his reports had been ignored by the correctional officers. Defendant did not specify who was 

harassing him. He reported worries about his legal case and denied any other significant 

psychiatric symptoms. Defendant indicated that he frequently invented answers when 

questioned. The medical report concluded that no psychotic symptoms were present. On 

November 9, 2022, during a follow-up psychiatric appointment, defendant made a request to be 

transferred to general population and initially refused to cooperate with the ordered evaluation 

because the examiner could not move him. 
4 

¶ 9 The report stated that during his examination, defendant was alert, oriented, and coherent. 

He was able to accurately describe the nature of his charges, the roles of the parties, and various 

parts of the process (i.e. discovery, plea bargaining, etc.). Defendant did not express any strange 

or delusional ideations. The psychiatrist ultimately found defendant fit to stand trial. She 

explained that, though defendant had made prior idiosyncratic statements, he had exhibited no 

incidents of psychosis or signs of any significant psychiatric condition since his incarceration. 

Nor had he exhibited any signs of mental illness that might impede his fitness. 

¶ 10 The court indicated that it had read the report. The court highlighted that defendant was 

“aware of the charges pending against him, he possess[ed] an understanding of the nature and 

purpose of legal proceedings, he [was] familiar with the roles of various courtroom personnel, 

and [was] capable of assisting in his defense.” The parties stipulated that, if called, the 

psychiatrist would testify consistent with her written report. The court found defendant fit to 

stand trial “[b]ased on the stipulation of the parties and [its] own review of the report[.]” After 

the conclusion of the fitness hearing, the court heard defendant’s renewed request for release 

from custody. The record reflects that defendant’s conduct during the entirety of the November 

28 proceedings was appropriate and responsive.The case proceeded to a bench trial on January 

11, 2023. 

¶ 11 Kozuch testified that on August 4, 2022, he was employed as a private security officer at 

Glen Oaks hospital. On that day, he had been informed that a discharged patient was refusing to 

leave the hospital. Kozuch identified defendant as the discharged patient. Kozuch explained that 

he responded to defendant’s room and informed him that he needed to leave. At this time, 

defendant was calm and compliant. Kozuch walked defendant out the hospital doors without 

issue. Thirty minutes later, Kozuch entered the emergency room lobby and discovered defendant 
5 

at the registration desk having a discussion with hospital staff and three other security officers. 

Ultimately, defendant was informed by several nurses that he needed to leave the hospital. He 

did not comply with their request. Kozuch indicated that at some point, police arrived, and he 

was asked by his supervisor to stay at the registration desk. Kozuch approached the desk and 

heard defendant arguing with the nurses. As Kozuch was leaning against the desk, defendant got 

very close to Kozuch, “pointed his finger in [his] face and he said, You guys just want to fight.” 

¶ 12 Defendant had a backpack on the ground in front of him as he stood at the desk. Kozuch 

indicated that defendant “didn’t say anything to anybody, turned around and walked towards the 

front doors.” Kozuch noticed that defendant had left his backpack. He did not want defendant to 

return once he left, so Kozuch picked up the backpack and began bringing it to defendant.

Kozuch indicated that defendant turned around and “came back in like a raging bull.” Defendant 

appeared to be “pretty mad at that point.” Kozuch initially believed that defendant was going to 

charge at him and knock him over. He handed defendant the backpack. Defendant “pushed [him] 

with the bag, then he pushed [him] *** with his hands.” Kozuch felt threatened and intimidated. 

He swung at defendant hoping to put space between them and get away from defendant. 

Defendant grabbed Kozuch by the collar and pushed him “like a bulldozer” into a set of chairs. 

Kozuch was struck in the ribs, back, and hip by the chair arms. His head hit the wall and a metal 

railing cut his arm from wrist to elbow. Kozuch testified that he sustained a concussion and 

received 12 stitches in his arm as a result. He stated that he “was out of it.” Kozuch was on his 

knees and used the arm of a chair to stand. He had no control over his legs. 

¶ 13 Defendant was standing to Kozuch’s immediate left. The backpack was in the middle of 

the lobby. Kozuch did not touch the backpack after initially bringing it to defendant. He testified 

that defendant never moved to retrieve the backpack and remained standing in close proximity to 
6 

Kozuch. When he stood, Kozuch indicated that he felt dizzy and disoriented. Defendant grabbed 

him and pushed him into a partition wall on the other side of the lobby. Kozuch’s head struck the 

wall and he fell to the floor.

¶ 14 Photographs of Kozuch’s injuries, video surveillance, and cell phone video of the 

altercation were admitted into evidence. The surveillance videos depicted defendant at the front 

desk while Kozuch was leaning against the desk speaking with defendant. Defendant moved 

close to him and put his hand in Kozuch’s face. Eventually, defendant walked away from the 

desk. Kozuch noticed the backpack, picked it up, and walked toward defendant. Defendant 

turned and walked quickly and aggressively toward Kozuch. Kozuch thrust the backpack in 

between himself and defendant. Defendant shoved Kozuch. Immediately thereafter, Kozuch 

swung and pushed back at defendant. Defendant pushed Kozuch into a row of chairs on one side 

of the lobby. Defendant stood over Kozuch as he attempted to stand. Once on his feet, Kozuch 

was visibly swaying and unsteady. Kozuch turned, saw defendant right next to him, and brought 

up his left arm in a blocking motion. Defendant grabbed Kozuch and pushed him into a partition 

wall on the other side of the lobby. The cell phone video recorded audio of the encounter. 

Defendant can be heard telling Kozuch “I will fuck you up” as he stood over him. 

¶ 15 Registration department manager Dulce Pani testified that on August 4, 2022, she was 

working at the registration desk at Glen Oaks hospital. Defendant approached her asking to use 

the triage room to change. Initially, defendant was allowed to use the room. After being asked to 

leave the triage room, defendant attempted to be readmitted to the hospital. Defendant engaged 

in a conversation with a nurse about why he could not be seen. Pani indicated that defendant was 

polite when he spoke with her but became loud and upset with the nurse and the security officers, 

prompting her to call the police. When the police arrived, security officers exited the hospital to 
7 

meet with them, leaving only Kozuch at the front desk with Pani and defendant. Pani heard 

Kozuch ask defendant to “cooperate and leave” to which defendant repeatedly replied: “Shut up. 

I’m not talking to you.” 

¶ 16 Defendant had a backpack in his possession that he set on the floor when he was speaking 

with Pani. Ultimately, defendant walked away from the front desk. He did not take his backpack 

with him. Pani observed Kozuch pick up the backpack and start walking after defendant. When 

defendant “turned around and saw [Kozuch] with the backpack on his hand, he just lost it.” Pani 

indicated that defendant quickly approached Kozuch and was very upset. Defendant attempted to 

take the backpack from Kozuch and became physical with him. Pani did not recall seeing 

Kozuch strike defendant. Defendant pushed Kozuch, and Kozuch fell after striking the chairs and 

wall. Pani indicated that defendant waited for Kozuch to stand and pushed him again, into a 

partition wall and chairs on the other side of the lobby. Both Kozuch and defendant ended up on 

the ground. At this point, police officers rushed in and arrested defendant. Pani observed Kozuch 

bleeding from his hand and the back of his head.

¶ 17 Officer Dennis Stachura of the Glendale Heights Police Department testified that on 

August 4, 2022, he had been dispatched to Glen Oaks hospital in response to a discharged 

patient, who he identified as defendant, that would not leave. While speaking with security 

officers outside the hospital, Stachura was alerted that a fight had begun in the lobby. As he 

entered the lobby, he observed defendant pushing Kozuch. Stachura placed defendant under 

arrest for battery. As they were walking toward the squad car, defendant stated something to the 

effect of “I told him not to touch my fucking bag.” Defendant did not complain of any injuries, 

nor did Stachura observe any injuries. A photograph of defendant during booking was admitted 

into evidence and did not depict any injuries to defendant’s arms, palms, face, or neck. 
8 

¶ 18 Defendant testified that on August 4, 2022, he walked to Glen Oaks hospital, was seen by 

medical staff, and discharged. After his discharge, defendant asked to use a private room to “get 

[him]self together.” Once in the room, he noticed he had a small cut on his right thigh. As he was 

about to bandage it, three security officers aggressively informed defendant that “they had to use 

the room” and defendant needed to leave. Defendant exited the room as requested and 

approached the front desk to try to be readmitted. Defendant testified that as the woman at the 

front desk was entering his information, Kozuch was leaning against the desk, speaking with 

him. Kozuch was giving off “an irritating type of energy like he wanted to *** fight [him].” 

Defendant indicated that he was growing irritated and attempted to avoid Kozuch. Kozuch kept 

interrupting defendant, saying: “ ‘ We don’t want you in here. You have to leave, sir.’ ” 

Defendant testified that the hospital called the police to remove him from the hospital. Defendant 

went toward the exit to speak with police and explain the situation. Defendant turned around 

before reaching the door and Kozuch “grabbed the book bag and he was giving it to 

[defendant].” 

¶ 19 Defendant could not recall if Kozuch shoved the backpack at him but indicated that 

Kozuch was holding onto the backpack as defendant grabbed it. At that point, a physical 

altercation began. Defendant pushed Kozuch and took the backpack. Kozuch then began 

“swinging” at him. Defendant pushed Kozuch off him, and Kozuch hit the wall and chairs. 

Defendant testified that he approached Kozuch to make sure he was okay and indicated that he 

intended to pick Kozuch up if he fell again. As defendant was standing there, Kozuch “turned 

around trying to fight [him] again.” Defendant responded by pushing Kozuch again but used “too 

much force; so he hit the little portable wall and hit the ground.” Defendant was then tackled by 

police officers and subsequently arrested. Defendant testified that he pushed Kozuch because he 
9 

was just trying to defend himself. Defendant could not recall if Kozuch’s demeanor was 

aggressive or cordial as he brought the backpack to him, but Kozuch was bringing it to him 

because he wanted him to leave. Defendant testified that Kozuch swung at him after defendant 

made “the first contact” and pushed him away. Defendant indicated that Kozuch attacked him a 

second time after he was pushed into the wall and chairs. Kozuch stood up, turned around, saw 

defendant behind him, and “[threw] punches at [him].”

¶ 20 On cross-examination, defendant indicated that Kozuch was not one of the security

officers that had been aggressive with him in the private room. Defendant admitted to getting 

close to Kozuch and putting his hand in his face while they were standing at the front desk, 

asking Kozuch to leave him alone because he was growing frustrated. Defendant testified that 

Kozuch did not follow him as he left to speak with the officers until he was close to the exit. At 

that time, Kozuch picked up his backpack and walked toward him. Defendant turned around and 

saw Kozuch approaching with his backpack. Defendant believed that Kozuch was bringing it to 

him. Kozuch handed him the backpack and he took it. Defendant pushed Kozuch while he was 

holding onto the backpack. A struggle ensued and defendant pushed Kozuch into the wall and he 

fell to his knees. At that time, defendant’s backpack was sitting in the middle of the lobby. 

Defendant made no move to retrieve the backpack or leave the lobby. Defendant repeated that he 

stood over Kozuch, intending to help him up and explained that “[t]he only reason it kind of 

seemed like [he] was going to do something else to [Kozuch] is because [they] were so close 

together.” However, defendant admitted that he told Kozuch “I’ll fuck you up” as he stood over 

him.

¶ 21 The court found defendant guilty of both counts of aggravated battery. Defendant’s 

motion for a new trial was denied. At a sentencing hearing, defense counsel highlighted 
10 

defendant’s cooperative demeanor throughout the proceedings and respect for the court process, 

including his cooperation with the fitness evaluation and his calm demeanor during his trial 

testimony. Specifically, counsel noted that defendant never became argumentative or combative 

with the State, answered questions to the best of his ability, and took the time to carefully 

respond. The court noted that it had ordered defendant be evaluated for fitness and he had been 

found fit to stand trial. Defendant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Defendant 

appealed.

¶ 22 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 23 On appeal, defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense or defense of property because the evidence 

showed that defendant only pushed Kozuch after he was denied his backpack and Kozuch struck 

him in the face. Further, defendant argues that the court erred in failing to make an independent 

inquiry into his fitness at a hearing, relying instead on the unchallenged observations recorded in 

the report. 

¶ 24 A. Self-Defense and Defense of Property

¶ 25 When a defendant presents evidence supporting the affirmative defenses of self-defense 

and defense of property, “the State [is] required to disprove the affirmative defense[s] in addition 

to proving the elements of the charged offense.” People v. Bausch, 2019 IL App (3d) 170001, 

¶ 22. “The relevant standard of review is whether, after considering the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable 

doubt, that defendant did not act in self-defense” or defense of property. People v. Lee, 213 Ill. 

2d 218, 225 (2004). The trier of fact is responsible for determining the credibility of the 
11 

witnesses, the weight to be afforded their testimony and any reasonable inferences to be drawn 

from the evidence. People v. Gray, 2017 IL 120958, ¶ 35. 

¶ 26 The elements of self-defense are that: (1) a person was threatened with unlawful force; 

(2) the person threatened was not the aggressor; (3) the danger of harm was imminent; (4) the 

use of force was necessary; (5) the threatened person “actually and subjectively believed a 

danger existed that required the use of the force” which was applied; and (6) this belief was

objectively reasonable. Lee, 213 Ill. 2d at 225. If the State negates any element of self-defense, 

the claim fails. Id.

¶ 27 Here, the evidence establishes that defendant was the initial aggressor. Defendant 

testified that he was irritated and frustrated with Kozuch. Defendant moved close to him and put 

his hand in Kozuch’s face. The video establishes that when defendant turned around and 

observed Kozuch following him with his backpack, he walked back in a quick, aggressive 

manner. Kozuch thrust the backpack in between them and defendant shoved him. Both 

defendant’s testimony and the surveillance video establish that defendant made the first contact. 

This coupled with defendant looming over Kozuch and threatening him clearly demonstrated that 

defendant was not acting in self-defense when he shoved Kozuch into two separate walls. 

¶ 28 Turning to defense of property, in relevant part, “[a] person is justified in the use of force 

against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary 

to prevent or terminate such other’s trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with 

*** personal property, lawfully in his possession ***.” 720 ILCS 5/7-3(a) (West 2022). The 

evidence, including defendant’s own testimony, establishes that Kozuch was attempting to give 

defendant his backpack. Kozuch possessed the backpack for mere seconds without any intention 

to deprive defendant of his possessions or interfere with them in any way. Even if Kozuch held 
12 

onto the backpack instead of releasing it immediately as defendant testified, at no time after 

pushing Kozuch away did defendant attempt to retrieve his property. Defendant could easily 

have retrieved his property and attempted to leave the hospital. Instead, he continued to loom 

over Kozuch, leaving the backpack in the middle of the lobby. Accordingly, the evidence 

provided by the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in selfdefense or defense of his property.

¶ 29 B. Fitness Determination

¶ 30 Defendant next argues that his due process rights were violated when he received an 

inadequate fitness hearing. Defendant acknowledges that he forfeited this issue but asks this 

court to review it under the plain error doctrine. The plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court 

to remedy a “clear or obvious error” when: (1) “the evidence is so closely balanced that the error 

alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of 

the error,” or (2) “that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and 

challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” 

People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007). Defendant contends that the court’s failure to 

make an independent determination of his fitness at a hearing is reversible under the second 

prong of the plain error analysis. Initially, we must determine whether a clear or obvious error 

occurred. People v. Eppinger, 2013 IL 114121, ¶ 19.

¶ 31 A criminal defendant is presumed fit to stand trial. 725 ILCS 5/104-10 (West 2022). “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.” Id. When, as here, 

the court finds a bona fide doubt as to defendant’s fitness to stand trial, a fitness hearing is 

mandatory. People v. Washington, 2016 IL App (1st) 131198, ¶ 72. 
13 

¶ 32 Generally, due process is satisfied, and the court’s finding of fitness is proper when it is 

based not only on stipulation, but also the court’s own review of a psychological report and

observations of defendant. People v. Gipson, 2015 IL App (1st) 122451, ¶ 30. The court must 

take an active role in determining whether a defendant is fit to stand trial and the record must 

affirmatively demonstrate that the court exercised its discretion and judgment in making its 

finding. Id. ¶ 29. The court “may consider an expert’s stipulated testimony to assess a 

defendant’s fitness but may not rely solely on the parties’ stipulation to an expert’s conclusion

that the defendant is fit.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. ¶ 30. Fitness determinations have been held 

proper when the stipulation considers the expert’s opinion testimony rather than just the 

conclusion of fitness. See People v. Lewis, 103 Ill. 2d 111, 116 (1984). 

¶ 33 Here, the parties stipulated that the psychiatrist who performed defendant’s fitness 

evaluation would testify consistently with her written report. The court reviewed the report and 

highlighted portions that it believed to be important, notably, defendant’s lack of signs or 

symptoms of any mental illness that would preclude his fitness to stand trial and his ability to 

understand the charges against him and the nature of the proceedings. The court had the 

opportunity to observe defendant during the hearing. It engaged in a responsive and nonhostile 

discussion with him prior to and after the fitness hearing. The record does not indicate that 

defendant made any concerning statements or engaged in any behavior that would have required 

any further inquiry from the court. Accordingly, the court’s determination of defendant’s fitness

was proper. See People v. Mounson, 185 Ill. App. 3d 31, 37 (1989); People v. Brooks, 2023 IL 

App (3d) 220005-U, ¶ 11. 

¶ 34 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 35 The judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed.
14 

¶ 36 Affirmed.