2023 IL App (4th) 210184-U 

NO. 4-21-0184 

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v. 

JONATHON D. HADDEN, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

McLean County

No. 12CF554 

 Honorable 

 John Casey Costigan, 

Judge Presiding. 

 JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court. 

 Justices Cavanagh and Harris concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for 

 leave to file a successive postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of 

 appellate counsel because his underlying claim that his trial counsel rendered 

 ineffective assistance by failing to file a fitness motion lacked merit.

¶ 2 In February 2014, a jury found defendant, Jonathon D. Hadden, guilty of

solicitation of murder for hire (720 ILCS 5/8-1.2(a) (West 2012)), and the trial court later

sentenced him to 25 years in prison. In March 2014, defendant filed a notice of direct appeal 

challenging his conviction. In November 2014, while his direct appeal was pending, defendant 

pro se filed a petition seeking relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-

1 et seq. (West 2014)). In January 2015, the trial court summarily denied defendant’s 

postconviction petition. 

¶ 3 In February 2015, defendant filed a notice of appeal challenging the summary 

FILED

January 25, 2023

Carla Bender

4th District Appellate

Court, IL

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). 
- 2 - 

dismissal of his pro se postconviction petition. In June 2015, this court consolidated defendant’s 

postconviction appeal with his direct appeal, which was still pending, and ultimately affirmed. 

People v. Hadden, 2015 IL App (4th) 140226, 44 N.E.3d 681.

¶ 4 In February 2021, defendant filed a motion for leave to file a successive 

postconviction petition, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. In March 2021, the 

trial court denied defendant leave to file his successive postconviction petition.

¶ 5 Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying him leave to file a 

successive postconviction petition because he (1) stated a claim of ineffective assistance of 

appellate counsel for failure to argue on appeal that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to 

request a fitness hearing and (2) made a prima facie showing of cause and prejudice. 

¶ 6 We disagree and affirm.

¶ 7 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 8 A. The Charges and Jury Trial 

¶ 9 In June 2012, the State charged defendant with solicitation of murder for hire (720 

ILCS 5/8-1.2(a) (West 2012)), alleging that he procured Nathan Luster, who was an undercover 

special agent with the Illinois State Police, to commit first degree murder pursuant to an agreement 

whereby Luster would kill Michael Anderson—defendant’s codefendant in a pending burglary 

case—in exchange for United States currency. 

¶ 10 In February 2014, the trial court conducted defendant’s jury trial. At the beginning 

of the proceedings, the court initiated a colloquy with defendant to ensure that he understood the 

charges, possible penalties, and any plea offers. After explaining the charges and the possible 

penalties, defendant stated that he understood them and had no questions. The trial court then asked 

defendant’s counsel to describe any plea offers. Counsel explained that he had received an offer 
- 3 - 

and communicated it to defendant. The court asked defendant if counsel’s representations were 

correct, and defendant confirmed that he received the plea offer, had time to discuss it with his 

attorney, and declined the offer. 

¶ 11 The following evidence was then presented. In December 2011, defendant and 

Anderson were arrested and detained in the McLean County jail on burglary charges. In an April 

2012 recorded overhear conversation between defendant and Nidrell Lyons, who was another 

inmate in the jail, defendant blamed Anderson for his arrest and stated that he wanted Anderson 

“gone.” Lyons offered that his cousin could do “what you’re trying to do” for $500. Defendant 

stated that he would pay Lyons’s cousin $1000. At the end of the conversation, Lyons asked, “You 

want him gone, right?” Defendant responded, “If that what he’s willing to do, yeah.” 

¶ 12 Luster testified that in May 2013, at the request of the McLean County Sheriff’s 

Department, he met with defendant in the visiting area of the jail, pretending to be Lyons’s cousin. 

Luster recorded the conversation with a hidden recording device. In the recording, defendant 

explained that he could not pay Luster until he bonded out of jail, which he was expecting to do 

that weekend. Defendant stated that if he was able to bond out, he would also obtain the money to 

bond out Anderson. Defendant gave Luster a phone number to call and instructions to follow to 

ascertain if defendant had been able to bond out.

¶ 13 Defendant also gave Luster Anderson’s full name and address, described the 

interior of Anderson’s home, and identified where in the home Anderson would likely be located. 

Defendant also described for Luster the location of the security cameras at the home. Luster then 

asked defendant to clarify what he wanted done to Anderson. Defendant responded that he wanted 

Anderson “gone completely” and did not want Anderson seen from or heard from again. 

¶ 14 Defendant testified that he “was just venting” when talking to Lyons. He stated he 
- 4 - 

had no money and never intended to give Luster any money. Defendant believed that Luster would 

not take any action until and unless defendant paid him first. When defendant told Luster that he 

would bond out that weekend, he did not actually believe that he would bond out.

¶ 15 The jury found defendant guilty.

¶ 16 B. The Sentencing Hearing

¶ 17 Later in February 2014, the trial court conducted a joint sentencing hearing on 

defendant’s convictions for burglary and solicitation of murder for hire. The court received a 

presentence investigation report (PSI) that stated, because defendant did not participate in the 

preparation of the PSI, the information contained within was taken from a previous PSI, which 

was prepared in 2011.

¶ 18 The PSI contained information regarding defendant’s mental health. Specifically, 

the PSI stated that “[i]t was previously reported the defendant *** ‘has [been] taking psychotropic 

medications since the third grade.’ ” The PSI did not identify the source of this prior report but 

provided detailed information, beginning in 2006, regarding defendant’s diagnoses and treatment. 

¶ 19 According to the PSI, in 2006, defendant was admitted for inpatient mental health 

treatment four times. Over the course of those admissions, he received various diagnoses, 

including bipolar disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), post-traumatic stress 

disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, mood disorder, conduct disorder, and intermittent 

explosive disorder. He received medications to treat those disorders, including Trileptal, Risperdal, 

and Adderall. In 2007, defendant received outpatient counseling services for intermittent explosive 

disorder and ADHD and was medicated with Risperdal, Abilify, Vyvanse, and Ativan. 

¶ 20 In 2008, defendant threatened his mother with a pizza cutter. He was transported to 

the hospital, administered Risperdal, and returned home. In 2009, defendant was diagnosed with 
- 5 - 

conduct disorder, impulse control disorder, and mood disorder. It was recommended that he 

receive treatment to address family and personality issues. In April 2009, defendant was admitted 

to a behavioral health center for a medical evaluation because he was displaying aggressive 

behavior and having racing thoughts. He was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and prescribed 

Seroquel. When defendant was interviewed by the probation officer for the 2011 PSI, he reported 

that he had been off his medications since 2009 and was “ ‘doing well without it.’ ”

¶ 21 At the sentencing hearing, defendant’s attorney told the trial court that defendant 

did not fail to cooperate with the PSI; instead, he never received the questionnaire. Counsel further 

stated that he asked defendant whether he wanted to make any corrections to the PSI and defendant 

answered that it was accurate except for the assertion that he did not cooperate with its preparation.

¶ 22 Defendant’s father, Dale Hadden, testified regarding defendant’s mental health. He 

stated that defendant was intelligent and when he was on his medication he was more likely to 

follow the rules. But when defendant was off his medication, he was impulsive and short-tempered. 

On cross-examination, Dale testified that before defendant was incarcerated for the present 

offense, he spoke with defendant about getting back on his medication. Dale stated that defendant 

responded he did not want to be on medication because he could control his behavior without it. 

¶ 23 During argument, the State commented that although defendant was unmedicated, 

it was apparent from court proceedings that defendant was intelligent, could hold a conversation, 

and could discuss his case with the court. The State remarked, “He’s not someone who doesn’t 

know what is going on around him.” 

¶ 24 Defendant’s attorney argued that it was “clear from the PSI that [defendant] has 

had mental health issues,” which explained his poor decision-making and impulse control. Counsel 

expressed his hope that through treatment, medication, or whatever else might be necessary, 
- 6 - 

defendant could become a productive member of society. Counsel stated that defendant was not 

currently on any medication that counsel was aware of.

¶ 25 Defendant made a statement in allocution, during which he stated, among other 

things, the following:

“Never at any time did I ask that someone would commit a crime for me, let alone 

a murder, which is one of the qualifications of the charge. It states that I must 

procure another to commit the offense of first degree murder. That along with the 

fact that when Special Agent Nate Luster came to visit me, he had to repeat who he 

was several times. Nidrell Lyons never knew my real name, therefore, could not 

send anyone to visit with me. The State’s Attorney’s office acted upon my words, 

not me. I was entrapped by Special Agent Luster and the State’s Attorney’s office. 

I was never intended to commit—when he asked where should I shoot him at, I 

didn’t anticipate the question. I never intended for [Anderson] to be killed and hurt 

in any way.

As I testified on the stand, I was venting. I’m guilty of saying a lot of dumb 

and immature things but not a murder for hire. 

*** 

I apologize to my family and friends and to those who I brought shame 

upon. I apologize to the victim, Michael Anderson, who even though he didn’t have 

to fear for his life due to the State’s accusations—I apologize to the court for its 

time being wasted on this case. I believe that the State’s Attorney’s office used this 

charge and conviction as a publicity stunt, which resulted in nothing more than 

slander and defamation of character in the highest degree.”
- 7 - 

¶ 26 During his statement, defendant also asked for a sentence of less than the minimum, 

on the basis that his codefendant received a sentence of TASC probation despite being

extended-term eligible, non-probationable, and ineligible for boot camp. Defendant also asserted 

that his trial counsel had failed to obtain a transcript of Lyons’s sentencing hearing and had failed 

to file a motion that defendant had asked him to file. (Defendant did not specify what kind of 

motion he asked counsel to file.) Defendant ended his statement by remarking that he was guilty

only of “being immature and not thinking [his] actions through.”

¶ 27 The trial court sentenced defendant to 5 years in prison for burglary and 25 years 

for solicitation of murder for hire, with the sentences to run consecutively. 

¶ 28 C. The Consolidated Appeals

¶ 29 In March 2014, defendant filed a notice of appeal. In November 2014, while 

defendant’s direct appeal was pending in this court, defendant pro se filed in the trial court a 

petition for postconviction relief pursuant to the Act, in which he alleged various trial errors.

¶ 30 In December 2014, before the trial court ruled on defendant’s postconviction 

petition, defendant pro se filed a “Memorandum in Support of PostConviction Relief,” in which 

he additionally complained of his trial counsel’s failure to request a fitness hearing. On that topic, 

defendant wrote the following:

“3. Defense counsel refused to investigate the alleged crime or interview 

Nidrell Lyons, Nate Luster and or [sic] file for a Pate hearing seeking to determine 

whether [defendant] was competent to stand trial when it was a known fact to 

counsel that [defendant] is on psychiatric medication essential to defendant’s theory 

of the case that he was just venting. Defense counsel refused to file any motions on 

[defendant’s] behalf as well as a post-trial motion to preserve issues at such a 
- 8 - 

critical stage.” 

¶ 31 Defendant further wrote as follows: 

“Had counsel done an investigation and listened to defendant’s request for 

a Pate hearing and or [sic] psychiatric evaluation when evidence was introduced on 

defendant’s behalf entitled him to a Pate hearing on issue of his competence to 

stand trial [Citation.] See also ‘PSI Exhibit A.’ ***

Had [defendant] received effective assistance who would have exhausted 

and investigation [sic], filed pre-trial motions, conducted a Pate hearing in concern 

to [defendant’s] mental history that is ongoing and filed a post-trial motion to 

preserve the record for appeal on [defendant’s] behalf, justice would not have 

suffered a miscarriage.” 

¶ 32 In January 2015, the trial court entered a written order summarily dismissing 

defendant’s petition. In the order, the court explained why each of the claims raised in defendant’s 

postconviction petition were frivolous and patently without merit. The written order did not 

address defendant’s claim in his memorandum in support of his petition that trial counsel failed to 

request a fitness hearing. In March 2015, defendant appealed the summary dismissal of his 

postconviction petition.

¶ 33 In June 2015, on defendant’s motion, this court consolidated defendant’s direct 

appeal and postconviction appeal. In July 2015, appellate counsel filed defendant’s brief, which 

raised only two arguments: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support defendant’s conviction and 

(2) the trial court failed to inquire into defendant’s posttrial claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel (failure to obtain Lyons’s sentencing transcript and file an unspecified motion). This court 

disagreed with defendant and affirmed his conviction. Hadden, 2015 IL App (4th) 140226, ¶ 2. 
- 9 - 

¶ 34 D. The Motion for Leave To File a Successive Postconviction Petition

¶ 35 In February 2021, defendant pro se filed a motion for leave to file a successive 

postconviction petition alleging, relevant to this appeal, that his appellate counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance by failing to “rais[e], amend[ ], or address[ ] all issues raised by *** 

defendant in his Post-Conviction Petition.” Defendant claimed that appellate counsel chose to 

focus on defendant’s direct appeal, which resulted in a violation of defendant’s rights to appeal 

and to due process. Regarding cause, defendant argued that he could not have raised an issue 

regarding appellate counsel’s performance in his initial petition because counsel’s failures did not 

occur until after the consolidation of the appeals. As to prejudice, defendant argued that, had 

appellate counsel raised any of the issues raised by defendant in his initial petition, “there is a 

reasonable probability the defendant would have received some relief.” 

¶ 36 In March 2021, the trial court entered a written order denying defendant’s motion 

for leave to file a successive postconviction petition. 

¶ 37 This appeal followed. 

¶ 38 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 39 Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying him leave to file a 

successive postconviction petition because he (1) stated a claim of ineffective assistance of 

appellate counsel for failure to argue on appeal that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to 

request a fitness hearing and (2) made a prima facie showing of cause and prejudice.

¶ 40 Specifically, defendant contends that he showed cause because he could not have 

brought the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in his initial petition because it had 

not yet occurred. He asserts that he has shown prejudice because appellate counsel’s failure denied 

defendant (1) his right to effective assistance of appellate counsel and (2) his due process right to 
- 10 - 

be fit when tried. 

¶ 41 We disagree and affirm.

¶ 42 A. The Applicable Law 

¶ 43 1. Successive Postconviction Petitions

¶ 44 The Act “provides a statutory remedy for criminal defendants who have suffered 

substantial violations of their constitutional rights at trial.” People v. Blalock, 2022 IL 126682, 

¶ 37. The Act contemplates the filing of only one postconviction petition without leave of court. 

725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2020). Accordingly, a defendant seeking leave to file a successive 

postconviction petition must demonstrate “[(1)] cause for his failure to bring the claim in [the] 

initial postconviction petition and [(2)] prejudice resulting from that failure.” People v. Moore, 

2019 IL App (3d) 170485, ¶ 10, 163 N.E.3d 178. “[A] prisoner shows cause by identifying an 

objective factor that impeded his or her ability to raise a specific claim during his or her initial 

post-conviction proceedings.” 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2020). “[A] prisoner shows prejudice 

by demonstrating that the claim not raised during his or her initial post-conviction proceedings so 

infected the trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violated due process.” Id. 

¶ 45 The cause-and-prejudice test involves a higher standard than the frivolous or 

patently without merit standard applied to first-stage postconviction petitions. People v. Smith, 

2014 IL 115946, ¶ 35, 21 N.E.3d 1172. “[T]he [trial] court must determine whether defendant has 

made a prima facie showing of cause and prejudice.” People v. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 24, 102 

N.E.3d 114. “To meet the cause-and-prejudice test *** requires the defendant to ‘submit enough 

in the way of documentation to allow a circuit court to make that determination.’ ” Smith, 2014 IL 

115946, ¶ 35 (quoting People v. Tidwell, 236 Ill. 2d 150, 161, 923 N.E.2d 728, 734-35 (2010)).

“Leave of court to file a successive petition should be denied when it is clear from a review of the 
- 11 - 

successive petition and supporting documents that the claims raised fail as a matter of law or are 

insufficient to justify further proceedings.” People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 33, 183 N.E.3d 

715 (citing Smith, 2014 IL 115946, ¶ 35). 

¶ 46 We review de novo the denial of leave to file a successive postconviction petition. 

Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 13. “We may affirm on any basis supported by the record if the judgment 

is correct.” People v. Smith, 2013 IL App (4th) 110220, ¶ 21, 986 N.E.2d 1274. 

¶ 47 2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

¶ 48 To state a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must allege that 

(1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) counsel’s 

deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. People v. Veach, 2017 IL 120649, ¶ 30, 89 N.E.3d 

366 (quoting People v. Domagala, 2013 IL 113688, ¶ 36, 987 N.E.2d 767, citing Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). “Specifically, a defendant must show that counsel’s 

performance was objectively unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and that there is a 

reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding 

would have been different.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. “ ‘A “reasonable probability” 

is defined as “a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” ’ ” Id. (quoting 

People v. Simpson, 2015 IL 116512, ¶ 35, 25 N.E.3d 601, quoting Strickland, 466 U.S.at 694). “A 

defendant must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test and a failure to satisfy [either] of the 

prongs precludes a finding of ineffectiveness.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. 

¶ 49 3. Fitness To Stand Trial 

¶ 50 “A defendant is unfit to stand trial if, due to a mental or physical condition, he or 

she is unable to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings or to assist in the defense.” 

People v. Brown, 236 Ill. 2d 175, 186, 923 N.E.2d 748, 755 (2010) (citing 725 ILCS 5/104-10 
- 12 - 

(West 2006)). “The trial court must order a fitness hearing if a bona fide doubt is raised of the 

defendant’s fitness.” Id. “A number of factors may be considered in assessing whether a bona fide

doubt of fitness is raised, including a defendant’s irrational behavior, demeanor at trial, any prior 

medical opinion on the defendant’s competence, and any representations by defense counsel on 

the defendant’s competence.” Id. at 186-87. 

¶ 51 “A defendant who is receiving psychotropic drugs shall not be presumed to be unfit 

to stand trial solely by virtue of the receipt of those drugs or medications.” 725 ILCS 5/104-21(a) 

(West 2020).

¶ 52 B. This Case

¶ 53 As an initial matter, defendant makes various arguments that he established cause. 

However, we need not address such arguments because we conclude defendant cannot show 

prejudice. Specifically, we conclude that defendant’s underlying claim—namely, that trial counsel 

was ineffective for failing to raise fitness—lacks merit. 

¶ 54 “To establish that the failure to request a fitness hearing prejudiced a defendant 

within the meaning of Strickland, a defendant must show that facts existed at the time of trial that 

would have raised a bona fide doubt of his ability ‘to understand the nature and purpose of the 

proceedings against him or to assist in his defense.’ ” People v. Harris, 206 Ill. 2d 293, 304, 794 

N.E.2d 181, 189 (2002) (quoting 725 ILCS 5/104-10 (West 1998)). A defendant is entitled to relief 

“ ‘if he shows that the trial court would have found a bona fide doubt of his fitness and ordered a 

fitness hearing if it had been apprised of the evidence now offered.’ ” Id. 

¶ 55 Putting aside the issue of whether defendant properly provided factual support and 

documentation to support his fitness claim, the record demonstrates that any claim that defendant 

was unfit lacks merit. The pertinent question in determining a defendant’s fitness to stand trial is 
- 13 - 

whether, “due to a mental or physical condition, he or she is unable to understand the nature and 

purpose of the proceedings or to assist in the defense.” Brown, 236 Ill. 2d at 186. Although the 

record in this case demonstrates a history of serious mental illness, it contains no indication that 

defendant was, at the time of his trial, suffering any symptoms of mental illness that rendered him 

unable to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings or assist in his defense. To the 

contrary, the record demonstrates that defendant (1) was able to clearly communicate with the trial 

court, (2) had a firm understanding of the charges against him and possible penalties, and 

(3) capably testified in his own defense at trial. 

¶ 56 For example, at his sentencing hearing, which occurred just two weeks after his 

jury trial, defendant made a statement in allocution that demonstrated his understanding of and 

participation in the trial proceedings. He claimed that when he was “on the stand” he was “venting” 

and was guilty only of saying “dumb and immature things,” but not murder for hire. He stated the 

elements of solicitation of murder and explained why the evidence did not prove the charge. He 

claimed that he was entrapped and that the case was a publicity stunt. Defendant also expressed 

his awareness that his codefendant was sentenced to probation despite being extended-term 

eligible and being charged with a non-probationable offense. And, importantly, defendant 

commented on his counsel’s performance at trial. These statements illustrate his understanding of 

the evidence presented against him at trial, the elements of the offense charged against him, and 

the relevant sentencing statutes. The fact that defendant was able, at the sentencing hearing, to 

offer his recollection and analysis of his jury trial shows this court that he indeed understood the 

trial proceedings and was able to assist in his own defense.

¶ 57 We note that, in his memorandum in support of his initial postconviction petition, 

defendant asserted that “it was a known fact to counsel that [defendant] is on psychiatric 
- 14 - 

medication essential to defendant’s theory of the case that he was just venting.” However, the 

receipt of psychotropic drugs, on its own, is not enough to establish that a defendant is unfit. 725 

ILCS 5/104-21(a) (West 2022). Defendant made no allegation that he was suffering any symptoms 

of any mental illness that affected his ability to understand the proceedings or assist in his defense. 

¶ 58 Because defendant has not shown that “facts existed at the time of trial that would 

have raised a bona fide doubt of his ability ‘to understand the nature and purpose of the 

proceedings against him or to assist in his defense’ ” (Harris, 206 Ill. 2d at 304 (quoting 725 ILCS 

5/104-10 (West 1998))), he has not demonstrated prejudice under Strickland. And, because 

defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel fails, so does his claim of ineffective 

assistance of appellate counsel. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying 

defendant leave to file his successive postconviction petition. 

¶ 59 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 60 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 61 Affirmed.