Opinion ID: 3134909
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Strickland – Failure to Request a Fitness Hearing

Text: Defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a fitness hearing pursuant to section 104–11(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/104–11(a) (West 1998)). Under section 104–11(a), “[t]he issue of the defendant’s fitness for trial, to plead, or to be sentenced may be raised by the defense . When a bona fide doubt of the defendant’s fitness is raised, the court shall order a determination of the issue before proceeding further.” 725 ILCS 5/104–11(a) (West 1998). Defendant argues that at the time of trial and sentencing there was a bona fide doubt of his fitness because he suffered from depression, a dependent personality disorder, and organic brain damage. The State argues that defendant waived this claim because it could have been raised on direct appeal. See People v. Olinger , 176 Ill. 2d 326, 365 (1997) (“argument is waived because it was apparent from a direct examination of the record and should have been raised on direct appeal”). The record on direct appeal contains defendant’s pretrial and presentence investigation reports. These reports state that in 1994, one year prior to his conviction and sentence in August 1995, defendant was diagnosed with depression and prescribed medication for a period of five months, to manage his depression. Defendant, however, also relies on evidence outside the record on direct appeal, including psychological assessments gathered by his post-conviction counsel which conclude that defendant suffers from severe depression, dependent personality disorder, and organic brain disorder. Accordingly, to the extent defendant relies upon evidence outside the record, we examine this claim. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are examined under the two-prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984). Regarding the first Strickland prong, a defendant must prove that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) absent counsel’s deficient performance there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. Evans , 186 Ill. 2d at 93. Under Strickland , reviewing courts entertain a strong presumption that the attorney’s performance was a product of sound trial strategy and professional judgment. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 689, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 694-95, 104 S. Ct. at 2065; see also People v. Richardson , 189 Ill. 2d 401, 414 (2000) (“Counsel’s decision whether to present a particular witness is generally a strategic choice which cannot support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel”). To overcome this presumption, a defendant must demonstrate that his attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that but for the attorney’s deficient performance the result would have been different. People v. Enoch , 122 Ill. 2d 176, 202 (1988); see also People v. Stewart , 104 Ill. 2d 463, 491-92 (1984) (“Effective assistance of counsel refers to competent, not perfect representation”). Regarding the second Strickland prong, a reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome–or put another way, that counsel’s deficient performance rendered the result of the trial unreliable or fundamentally unfair. Enis , 194 Ill. 2d at 376. To prevail, a defendant must satisfy both the performance and prejudice prongs of the Strickland test. People v. Sanchez , 169 Ill. 2d 472, 487 (1996). If this court concludes that defendant did not suffer prejudice, the court need not decide whether counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient. Evans , 186 Ill. 2d at 94. 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.” 725 ILCS 5/104–10 (West 1998); People v. Easley , 192 Ill. 2d 307, 319 (2000). “Defendant is entitled to relief  only 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.” Easley , 192 Ill. 2d at 319. To determine whether there exists a bona fide doubt of defendant’s fitness, a court may consider the defendant’s irrational behavior, the defendant’s demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on defendant’s competence. Easley , 192 Ill. 2d at 319; see also People v. Eddmonds , 143 Ill. 2d 501, 518 (1991) (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’ ”), quoting Drope v. Missouri , 420 U.S. 162, 180, 43 L. Ed. 2d 103, 118, 95 S. Ct. 896, 908 (1975). Taking as true defendant’s allegations that he suffers from mental impairments as they are stated in his post-conviction psychological assessments (see Coleman , 183 Ill. 2d at 380-82), these allegations do not necessarily establish that defendant was unfit. Easley , 192 Ill. 2d at 322-23. The issue is whether defendant could understand the proceedings and cooperate with counsel. Easley , 192 Ill. 2d at 323. Specifically, we have stated that “[f]itness speaks only to a person’s ability to function within the context of a trial. It does not refer to sanity or competence in other areas.” Easley , 192 Ill. 2d at 320, 322. In this case, the record clearly illustrates that defendant understood the nature and purpose of the proceedings. On several occasions, the court provided defendant with a detailed explanation of the proceedings and informed defendant of his rights during those proceedings. Following these admonishments, defendant stated that he understood. Furthermore, the record shows that defendant participated in his own defense; communicated and conferred with his trial counsel; expressed to the court his understanding of the proceedings, including his decisions to litigate rather than agree to a plea, waive his right to testify, and waive his right to a jury at the sentencing hearing; and articulated a clear statement in allocution during mitigation. Because defendant has not shown that there was a bona fide doubt concerning his fitness, defendant fails to make a substantial showing of ineffective assistance of counsel on this claim. The circuit court correctly dismissed defendant’s claim without an evidentiary hearing.