Opinion ID: 2083453
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Failure to Request a Fitness Hearing

Text: Defendant next contends that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to request a fitness hearing. Specifically, defendant cites to an opinion by Dr. Michael Gelbort, a psychologist who evaluated defendant for his post-conviction petition, that defendant was intellectually incapable of understanding the admonitions of the trial court regarding his waiver of jury for sentencing. Observing that a person whose mental condition is such that he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense may not be subjected to a trial ( Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162,171, 95 S.Ct. 896, 903, 43 L.Ed.2d 103, 113 (1975)), defendant reasons that he was, therefore, prejudiced by not receiving a fitness hearing. A defendant is presumed to be fit to stand trial. 725 ILCS 5/104-10 (West 1994). A defendant is entitled to a pretrial fitness hearing only when a bona fide doubt of his fitness to stand trial or be sentenced is raised. People v. Eddmonds, 143 Ill.2d 501, 512, 161 Ill.Dec. 306, 578 N.E.2d 952 (1991); see also Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 401 n. 13, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 2688 n. 13,125 L.Ed.2d 321, 333 n. 13 (1993) (As in any criminal case, a competency determination is necessary only when a court has reason to doubt the defendant's competence). Therefore, in order to establish that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's alleged incompetency, defendant must demonstrate that facts existed at the time of his trial which raised a bona fide doubt of his ability to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings and to assist in his defense. Eddmonds, 143 Ill.2d at 512-13, 161 Ill.Dec. 306, 578 N.E.2d 952. Defendant is entitled to relief on this post-conviction claim only if he demonstrates 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. Eddmonds, 143 Ill.2d at 513,161 Ill.Dec. 306, 578 N.E.2d 952. The critical inquiry is whether the facts presented in defendant's post-conviction petition raised a bona fide doubt of his fitness to stand trial. The trial court hearing defendant's post-conviction petition determined that they did not. We do not consider this finding against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant bears the burden of showing that, at the time of trial, there were facts in existence which raised a substantial and legitimate doubt as to his mental capacity to cooperate with counsel and meaningfully participate in his defense. Eddmonds, 143 Ill.2d at 518,161 Ill.Dec. 306,578 N.E.2d 952. Factors which are relevant to this consideration include (1) a defendant's irrational behavior; (2) his demeanor at trial; and (3) any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial. Drope, 420 U.S. at 180, 95 S.Ct. at 908, 43 L.Ed.2d at 118. Defendant offers no evidence regarding his demeanor or that he acted irrationally at trial. In addition, there was no prior medical opinion on defendant's competence to stand trial. The only evidence defendant cites to show there was a bona fide doubt of his fitness was Dr. Gelbort's opinion that defendant was incapable of understanding the court's admonitions regarding his jury waiver. A defendant's limited intellectual ability, without more, does not render him unfit to stand trial. People v. Murphy, 72 Ill.2d 421, 432-33, 21 Ill.Dec. 350, 381 N.E.2d 677 (1978). Notably, Dr. Gelbort did not determine that defendant was unfit to stand trial or be sentenced. Rather, Dr. Gelbort essentially determined that defendant, because of his inability to comprehend complex sentences, would not understand the judge's explanations regarding the jury waiver. The facts offered by defendant fall short of raising a bona fide doubt of his fitness. The cases on which defendant relies are inapposite. See People v. Murphy, 160 Ill. App.3d 781, 112 Ill.Dec. 295, 513 N.E.2d 904 (1987); People v. Howard, 74 Ill.App.3d 138, 30 Ill.Dec. 120, 392 N.E.2d 775 (1979). Both those cases involved situations where the circumstances at the time of the trial made it readily apparent that there was a question as to the competency of defendant. See Murphy, 160 Ill.App.3d at 783, 789, 112 Ill.Dec. 295, 513 N.E.2d 904 (counsel was aware defendant attempted suicide during trial and was incarcerated in mental ward); Howard, 74 Ill.App.3d at 140, 30 Ill.Dec. 120, 392 N.E.2d 775 (counsel was aware defendant had been institutionalized). Defendant has offered no facts which indicate there were reasonable grounds at time of trial to question his competency. Accordingly, defendant was not entitled to post-conviction relief on this claim.