Opinion ID: 2017830
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Psychotropic Drug Issue

Text: Defendant maintains that he is entitled to an automatic reversal for new trial proceedings because he failed to receive a fitness hearing that he was entitled to receive by statute. Defendant correctly notes that at the time of his trial proceedings, section 104-21(a) of the Criminal Code of 1961 provided that [a] defendant who is receiving psychotropic drugs or other medications under medical direction is entitled to a hearing on the issue of his fitness while under medication. 725 ILCS 5/104-21(a) (West 1992). Citing to this court's decisions in People v. Brandon, 162 Ill.2d 450, 205 Ill.Dec. 421, 643 N.E.2d 712 (1994), and People v. Nitz, 173 Ill.2d 151, 218 Ill.Dec. 950, 670 N.E.2d 672 (1996), defendant argues that the circuit court erred in concluding that a new trial was not necessary despite the fact that defendant was taking psychotropic medication while he was awaiting trial at the Bureau County jail. Defendant alleged in his pro se postconviction petition that on April 10, 1992, defense counsel filed an emergency motion for a psychiatric examination in the wake of defendant's attempted escape from the Bureau County jail and his attempt at suicide. Defendant further alleged that the circuit court denied the request. [2] Defendant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise the circuit court that defendant, for the duration of his time in the Bureau County Jail, had been receiving prescribed medication. The petition listed the following drugs that defendant had been given: propoxyphene, docusate sodium, cephalexin, Imipramine, Xanax, penicillin, and ibuprofen. Defendant claimed that his trial counsel's ineffectiveness in this area deprived him of the fitness hearing to which he was entitled, and that a new trial was necessary. The State sought dismissal of this claim on the basis of waiver. The circuit court denied the State's motion, ruling that defendant's allegations as set forth in his pro se complaint warranted further factual inquiry, at an evidentiary hearing, pursuant to this court's decision in People v. Britz, 174 Ill.2d 163, 220 Ill.Dec. 388, 673 N.E.2d 300 (1996). Defendant did not present any evidence at the ensuing evidentiary hearing as to this particular claim because it was defendant's position that, under this court's opinion in Brandon, reversal was automatic given defendant's ingestion of psychotropic drugs while awaiting trial. The State called Phyllis E. Amabile, M.D., who was the principal witness at the hearing. Dr. Amabile, a licensed physician and board-certified psychiatrist, examined defendant's medical log and determined that defendant received four different psychotropic drugs while in custody at the Bureau County jailXanax, Vistaril, Imipramine, and Ativan. Specifically, from November 1, 1991, through November 13, 1991, defendant received 49 doses of 0.5 milligrams of Xanax. Defendant, also received on November 1, 1991, one 100-milligram dose of Vistaril. From December 27, 1991, through January 1, 1992, defendant received six doses of 50 milligrams of Imipramine. The records further revealed that on January 8, 1992, defendant received one 2-milligram dose of Ativan, and that on March 16, 1992, he received one 100-milligram dose of Vistaril. According to Dr. Amabile, because defendant received only a single dose of Ativan on January 8, 1992, it was extremely unlikely that the drug would have had an effect on defendant's central nervous system. Similarly, the single doses of Vistaril, administered on November 1, 1991, and once on March 16, 1992, were also too isolated to have had an adverse effect on defendant. Dr. Amabile characterized defendant's six doses of Imipramine, administered December 27, 1991, to January 1, 1992, to be non-therapeutic and were not sufficiently proximate in time to the trial proceedings which commenced some six months later in June 1992 to have affected [defendant's] mental functioning. As for defendant's ingestion of Xanax, which had been prescribed during defendant's withdrawal from cigarette smoking, Dr. Amabile testified that defendant's ingestion of the drug was not proximate enough in time to have affected defendant's mental functioning in June 1992. Dr. Amabile noted that the only drug that defendant took daily while in custody and during his trial proceedings was docusate sodium, a stool softener, which is not classified in any way as a psychotropic drug, nor does it share any of the characteristics of a psychotropic drug. In Dr. Amabile's medical opinion, none of the drugs ingested by defendant interfered with his ability to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense. Sergeant Bill Redshaw testified that he was the jail administrator for the Bureau County jail, where defendant was incarcerated from October 1991 to November 1992. According to Redshaw, defendant was kept in a solitary cell for security reasons. Redshaw explained that, due to the nature of the charges against defendant, jail officials feared that defendant would not be safe in the general jail population. Redshaw interacted personally with defendant during the year defendant was held at the jail and the two men were on a first-name basis. Redshaw found defendant to be articulate, intelligent, and cooperative. Defendant was alert, attentive, and did not display any unusual behavior. Redshaw testified that defendant did not appear to suffer from hallucinations, delusions, or confusion. The only time Redshaw saw defendant become agitated was when the Bureau County jail became a smoke-free environment, pursuant to orders of the Bureau County board. Defendant, a smoker, was consequently denied his cigarettes and had to adjust accordingly. Redshaw stated that during this period defendant was taking the drug Xanax, which seemed to cause defendant to sleep quite a bit. Redshaw further testified that defendant attempted to escape from the jail on April 7, 1992, and tried to commit suicide. According to Redshaw, on the days preceding April 7, 1992, defendant was alert and did not engage in abnormal behavior. When he returned to the jail, defendant's behavior did not change. He and Redshaw continued to converse. Redshaw characterized his conversations with defendant at this point in time as clear and lucid. When trial proceedings commenced in June 1992, defendant appeared to understand the nature of his situation and interacted with his lawyers. John Thompson also testified at the hearing. Thompson was the chief deputy sheriff of Bureau County while defendant was in custody at the Bureau County jail. During that time, Thompson saw defendant on a daily basis until March, 1992. Defendant never appeared to be disoriented or confused. Thompson stated that defendant was inquisitive and knowledgeable about things that were going on around him, sometimes to the point where it surprised us. Thompson resumed his duties at the jail on June 12, 1992, the day after defendant entered his guilty plea. Thompson did not notice any difference in defendant's demeanor from March. Thompson found that defendant remained openly conversational and attentive to himself. According to Thompson, defendant appeared quite aware of what was going on, to the point of, [defendant] would talk to us with it, about it on a daily basis. Defendant did not engage in any unusual behavior and appeared to understand and relate to all of the court proceedings that were taking place in the summer and fall of 1992. James Reed, a deputy for the Bureau County sheriff's department, also testified. Reed was a jailer during the time that defendant was in an inmate at the jail, and Reed saw him regularly. According to Reed, defendant appeared to be well aware of his surroundings and interacted well with everyone. Defendant did not act or appear confused and seemed alert. One of Reed's duties at the jail was to dispense medication to the prisoners. Reed never saw any behaviorial changes in defendant as a result of the medications he took. Defendant never complained about having any difficulties in his emotional condition. Reed was also responsible for defendant's security detail during visits to court. During the times Reed took defendant to court, defendant never appeared to be confused or uncomprehending of the nature of the proceedings or what was going on. According to Reed, while in court, defendant appeared to be attentive to his lawyers and to the judge. Timothy Pierson, another jailer at the Bureau County jail, also testified as to defendant's demeanor while in custody. Defendant appeared to always be well oriented with respect to time, place, and the circumstances around him. Pierson recalled that defendant was very courteous and expressed anger only twicewhen defendant lost his smoking privileges and when Bureau County Public Defender Maloney resigned from office in January 1992. According to Pierson, defendant interacted well with the jail staff and knew all of the different jailers' work schedules and hobbies. In ruling on this claim, the circuit court specifically relied upon this court's opinion in People v. Britz, 174 Ill.2d 163, 220 Ill.Dec. 388, 673 N.E.2d 300 (1996). The circuit court determined that, contrary to defendant's assertions, a new trial was not required because defendant's psychotropic medicine was not administered to defendant close enough in time to the legal proceedings to have had an adverse effect on him. Citing the testimony of Dr. Amabile, the court found that each of the psychotropic drugs taken by defendant was out of defendant's system well before the entry of defendant's guilty plea, the hearing on his subsequent motion to vacate the plea, and the sentencing proceedings. For these reasons, the court concluded that defendant's trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to utilize defendant's ingestion of these drugs as a basis for a fitness hearing. As we will explain, we cannot conclude that the circuit court erred in its resolution of this matter. The failure to receive a fitness hearing pursuant to section 104-21(a) does not require automatic reversal. People v. Mitchell, 189 Ill.2d 312, 245 Ill.Dec. 1, 727 N.E.2d 254 (2000). We acknowledge that defendant's claim, as originally pleaded, was predicated on cases such as Brandon and People v. Gevas, 166 Ill.2d 461, 211 Ill.Dec. 511, 655 N.E.2d 894 (1995), which predated Mitchell. Indeed, defendant argues in his brief that the various changes in law that occurred in this court's psychotropic-drug jurisprudence over the years prejudiced him because postconviction counsel was operating under the belief that defendant was entitled to an automatic reversal and, as a result, did not need to present any evidence in furtherance of the claim. We disagree. At the time of the evidentiary hearing, it was clear from this court's published opinions that the mere ingestion of psychotropic drugs while in jail awaiting trial was not enough to trigger an automatic reversal. In People v. Kinkead, 168 Ill.2d 394, 214 Ill.Dec. 145, 660 N.E.2d 852 (1995), we noted that the bare fact that a defendant was treated with psychotropic drugs while in jail does not, standing alone, warrant a new trial. In fact, we remanded the matter in Kinkead for an evidentiary hearing at which the circuit court was to conduct an inquiry into the factual circumstances surrounding defendant's asserted use of psychotropic medication while in prison. Kinkead, 168 Ill.2d at 417, 214 Ill.Dec. 145, 660 N.E.2d 852. We noted that those circumstances included the dates on which [the defendant] received and ingested such medicine and whether the psychotropic drug treatment [was] linked closely enough to the time of defendant's plea of guilty and sentencing to have entitled him to a competency hearing pursuant to section 104-21(a). Kinkead, 168 Ill.2d at 417, 214 Ill.Dec. 145, 660 N.E.2d 852. See also Britz, 174 Ill.2d at 196, 220 Ill.Dec. 388, 673 N.E.2d 300 (noting that no fitness hearing is required where there is no indication that defendant was being treated with psychotropic medication during the relevant times of the proceedings). Defendant's pleadings in this case did not identify when precisely defendant received and ingested the psychotropic drugs. As such, the circuit court correctly ordered a further factual inquiry into the circumstances of defendant's ingestion of psychotropic drugs. For this reason, we cannot agree that the change of law cited by defendant on appeal unduly hampered the presentation of this claimdefendant's allegations were sufficient to survive the State's motion to dismiss, but under our case law at the time, defendant needed a further factual basis to achieve the automatic reversal for which he argued. The circuit court understood this and correctly undertook an inquiry into the factual circumstances surrounding defendant's use of psychotropic medication while at the Bureau County jail. We have reviewed the testimony adduced at the hearing and conclude that the circuit court's factual findings were not manifestly erroneous. In light of these circumstances, the circuit court did not err in denying defendant postconviction relief on the basis of this claim. Simply stated, the fact that the law changed while defendant's appeal was pending is of no moment in this case because defendant's claim would have failed even under our pre- Mitchell case law.