Court Opinion

ID: 9718107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:17:09.406447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:57.349872
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE KNECHT, dissenting: The trial court erred when it permitted respondent to waive his right to counsel without determining whether he was competent to do so. This case involves a petition for discharge by a respondent who had previously been involuntarily admitted. Thus, the trial court knew it was confronted with someone who had been proved to be mentally ill and in need of treatment. In addition, the respondent’s petition for discharge showed a delusional thought process with reference to the United States Army, the Scotch Guard and the British War Ministry. Further, another trial court had previously found respondent to be in need of a guardian. Even if none of these factors were present, it is the obligation of the trial court to determine whether a respondent has the capacity to make an informed waiver of counsel (405 ILCS 5/3 — 805 (West 1992)). A previously committed, delusional respondent who has a court-appointed guardian is unlikely to be an effective pro se advocate. It is reversible error to permit any respondent to waive counsel without determining his understanding of the purpose of counsel and the proceedings. It is an egregious error in this case to permit a waiver because all that was known by the court, without any inquiry, should have resulted in refusing the waiver. It was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to fail to make any inquiry into respondent’s understanding of the consequences of waiving his right to counsel and representing himself.