Court Opinion

ID: 9736493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:58:17.179152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:07.043816
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE LYTTON, specially concurring: Although defendant’s counsel withdrew his request for further hearing on the matter, he never withdrew his motion for hearing. Counsel seemed to be asking the court for a decision on fitness at the hearing on his speedy-trial motion. The trial court then incorrectly found that the defendant had withdrawn his motion and found the defendant fit. Dr. Chapman’s report had already been filed with the court. We must presume that the trial court had read the doctor’s report. Thus, it appears that the court made its decision on fitness based on the evidence in the record. However, confusion in the record about what was happening at the hearing renders the outcome too vague, considering the due process requirements raised in People v. Griffin, 178 Ill. 2d 65, 687 N.E.2d 820 (1997). Therefore, I agree with the majority that this court retain jurisdiction of the matter while allowing a limited remand for a retrospective fitness hearing.