Opinion ID: 2229615
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: Defendant alleges that trial counsel was deficient in not researching and advising defendant of the possibility of pleading GBMI and that, as a result of that deficiency, defendant was prejudiced by not receiving the benefits that accompany a plea of GBMI. Defendant contends that but for the errors of his trial counsel, he would have pleaded GBMI. GBMI is a relatively recent alternative to the already well-known pleas of guilty and not guilty. Having been enacted and made effective in September 1981, GBMI occupies a unique place in our body of law. As this court has noted, a plea or adjudication of GBMI is unlike a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity in that the defendant is not absolved of criminal responsibility. People v. Harrison, 226 Ill.2d 427, 436, 315 Ill.Dec. 680, 877 N.E.2d 432 (2007). A plea of GBMI is in that respect far more similar to a plea of guilty. The sentencing range a defendant faces when pleading GBMI is completely unaffected, and, in fact, a defendant who enters a GBMI plea is still eligible to receive the death penalty. People v. Crews, 122 Ill.2d 266, 278, 119 Ill.Dec. 308, 522 N.E.2d 1167 (1988). This is not to say that GBMI is a meaningless option. The separate verdict [GBMI] helps clarify for the jury the differences between insanity and mental illness that falls short of insanity. People v. Lantz, 186 Ill.2d 243, 258, 238 Ill.Dec. 592, 712 N.E.2d 314 (1999). It also allows a jury to identify offenders who are in need of treatment while they are incarcerated. Lantz, 186 Ill.2d at 259, 238 Ill.Dec. 592, 712 N.E.2d 314. The treatment referred to in Lantz provides the only discernible difference between a guilty plea and a plea of GBMI. [U]pon a finding of guilty but mentally ill, the Department of Corrections must `cause periodic inquiry and examination to be made concerning the nature, extent, continuance, and treatment of the defendant's mental illness' and provide `such psychiatric, psychological, or other counseling and treatment for the defendant as it determines necessary.' 730 ILCS 5/5-2-6(b) (West 2004). People v. Urdiales, 225 Ill.2d 354, 428, 312 Ill.Dec. 876, 871 N.E.2d 669 (2007). The Administrative Code lays out the timetable for these periodic examinations. The Administrative Code states that the Department is to review an inmate who is in a general institutional setting every three months for the first six months in custody and every six months thereafter. 20 Ill. Adm.Code § 415.50 (2007) (amended at 29 Ill. Reg. 3883 (eff. March 1, 2005)). While a plea of GBMI guarantees periodic examinations, it does not guarantee treatment. An inmate receives treatment only if, and to the extent, the Department deems such treatment is appropriate. People v. Kaeding, 98 Ill.2d 237, 244-45, 74 Ill.Dec. 509, 456 N.E.2d 11 (1983). Despite this limitation, these periodic reviews and examinations are the benefits that defendant points to in alleging that he has been prejudiced as a result of trial counsel's deficiency in not investigating or explaining a GBMI plea to him. The mere presence of a mental illness is not sufficient to guarantee that a court will accept a GBMI plea. Before a plea of GBMI may be accepted, the court must examine the reports of a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist who has examined the defendant, and hold a hearing to determine whether the defendant was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offense for which the plea is being entered. 725 ILCS 5/113-4(d), 115-2(b) (West 2002). In addition, it is not enough that a defendant has a diagnosable mental illness at the time of the offense. The defendant must have a  substantial disorder of thought, mood, or behavior which afflicted a person at the time of the commission of the offense and which impaired that person's judgment, but not to the extent that he is unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his behavior. (Emphases added.) 720 ILCS 5/6-2(d) (West 2002).