Court Opinion

ID: 9412595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-31 20:05:48.536667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:39.458590
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except
            in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

                                         2023 IL App (3d) 220005-U

                                   Order filed July 31, 2023
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                    IN THE

                                    APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                              THIRD DISTRICT

                                                     2023

      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF                        )      Appeal from the Circuit Court
      ILLINOIS,                                         )      of the 21st Judicial Circuit,
                                                        )      Kankakee County, Illinois,
             Plaintiff-Appellee,                        )
                                                        )      Appeal No. 3-22-0005
             v.                                         )      Circuit No. 18-CF-511
                                                        )
      ALONZO BROOKS,                                    )      Honorable
                                                        )      Clark E. Erickson,
             Defendant-Appellant.                       )      Judge, Presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

            JUSTICE PETERSON delivered the judgment of the court.
            Justices Brennan and Davenport concurred in the judgment.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                  ORDER

¶1          Held: The circuit court did not err in determining defendant was fit to stand trial.

¶2          Defendant, Alonzo Brooks, was convicted of unlawful restraint and sentenced to 12

     months’ probation. On appeal, defendant argues the Kankakee County circuit court erred in finding

     him fit to stand trial because it did not make an independent inquiry during the fitness restoration

     hearing. We affirm.
¶3                                            I. BACKGROUND

¶4          On September 7, 2018, defendant was charged by superseding indictment with attempted

     aggravated kidnapping (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 10-2(a)(2) (West 2018)), child abduction (id. § 10-

     5(b)(10)(A)) and unlawful restraint (id. § 10-3(a)). The charges were based on the allegation that

     defendant approached a nine-year-old girl and forcibly led her away from her school bus stop. On

     September 21, 2018, defendant was initially found unfit to stand trial and committed to the

     Department of Human Services (DHS) for psychiatric treatment to restore fitness.

¶5          The court held a fitness restoration hearing on April 4, 2019. At the hearing, the parties

     stipulated to a mental health progress report presented to the court from the DHS indicating

     defendant had been participating in his psychiatric treatment program, was compliant with his

     psychotropic medication regimen, understood the nature of courtroom proceedings, and was

     willing to cooperate with his attorney to assist in his defense. The report, based upon an evaluation

     conducted by a licensed clinical psychologist on March 12, 2019, concluded that defendant was

     restored to fitness. During the hearing, the following colloquy occurred:

                            “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: He’s been restored to fitness.

                            THE COURT: Okay. Have you had a chance to meet with your client?

                            [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I am, Judge. He—you know—

                            THE COURT: Fine. All right. So, [defendant], you have—you have been

                    found to be fit to stand trial. All right?

                            THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

                            THE COURT: And you got a communication from—

                                                        2
                           [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I talked to [the licensed clinical psychologist]

                   yesterday. He sent me an e-mail and said he is now fit, and he was gonna file a

                   report. I don’t know if he did with you or not.

                           [THE STATE]: Well I have one from department of health which found

                   that he’s fit.

                           THE COURT: You—you have one from Department—

                           [THE STATE]: Yes.

                           THE COURT:—of Human Services?

                           [THE STATE]: Yes, Your Honor. Want me to make a copy?

                           THE COURT: Yeah, that’d be fine. Well let’s show the case is called for

                   fitness restoration hearing and both sides are present. The conclusion of your team

                   is that you are fit to stand trial. Are you taking your medication, sir?

                           THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

                           THE COURT: Good. Good. That’s great and is it—show that this

                   Restoration Exhibit 1 is admitted into evidence. We can seal that. All right. Any

                   additional evidence?

                           [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, Judge. We’ll stipulate to the report.

                           THE COURT: All right. Well the report is stipulated to. The Court’s had a

                   chance to review that report in its entirety and [the] Court finds that the defendant

                   has been restored to fitness.”

¶6          Defendant subsequently waived his right to a jury trial. After a bench trial, defendant was

     found guilty of unlawful restraint and acquitted of the remaining charges. Defendant’s motion for

                                                     3
     new trial was denied. The court sentenced defendant to a term of 12 months’ probation. Defendant

     appealed.

¶7                                             II. ANALYSIS

¶8          Defendant argues the circuit court erred by failing to conduct an independent inquiry into

     his fitness to stand trial and instead improperly relied upon the stipulated mental health progress

     report findings. Defendant acknowledges his claim was not properly preserved and requests plain

     error review. The plain error doctrine allows for the review of an unpreserved error

                    “when (1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced

                    that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant,

                    regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred

                    and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and

                    challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the

                    evidence.” People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007).

     The first step in plain error analysis is determining whether a clear or obvious error occurred. Id.

¶9          In determining a defendant’s fitness, the circuit court must conduct an independent inquiry

     and cannot rely exclusively on the parties’ stipulation to a psychological report finding defendant

     fit. People v. Cook, 2014 IL App (2d) 130545, ¶ 15. However, due process is generally satisfied

     and a circuit court’s finding of fitness is proper when it is based not only on stipulation, but also

     encompasses the court’s review of a psychological report and its own observations of defendant.

     People v. Gipson, 2015 IL App (1st) 122451, ¶ 30. “The distinction between proper and improper

     stipulations, however, is a fine one.” Id. Determinations based on stipulations have been held as

     proper when the stipulation considers the expert’s opinion testimony rather than just the conclusion

     of fitness. People v. Lewis, 103 Ill. 2d 111, 116 (1984). “Upon considering [a] stipulation[ ] and

                                                      4
       personally observing defendant[ ], the circuit court could find defendant[ ] fit, seek more

       information, or find the evidence insufficient to support a finding of restoration to fitness.” Id.

       Conversely, fitness determinations have been found improper when the circuit court merely

       accepts the stipulated report without review and fails to demonstrate any exercise of discretion.

       See Cook, 2014 IL App (2d) 130545, ¶ 19; People v. Thompson, 158 Ill. App. 3d 860, 864-65

       (1987) (circuit court did not review the report and based fitness decision solely on parties’

       stipulation). While the record must affirmatively reflect that the circuit court exercised its

       discretion and judgment, detailed findings regarding fitness are not required. Gipson, 2015 IL App

       (1st) 122451, ¶ 29.

¶ 10          The record here shows that in addition to accepting the parties’ stipulation to the mental

       health progress report, the court also independently reviewed and considered the report in its

       entirety. As the expert opinion in the report referenced medication compliance as a condition of

       fitness, the circuit court affirmatively exercised its discretion when it questioned defendant about

       whether he was currently taking his medication. See People v. Goodman, 347 Ill. App. 3d 278,

       287 (2004) (“In light of the trial court’s independent duty to determine a defendant’s fitness to

       stand trial, a trial court may certainly exercise its discretion to pose questions to the defendant.”).

       During this inquiry, the court also had the opportunity to observe and assess defendant’s responses

       and demeanor and make comparisons based on its periodic prior observations of defendant during

       court appearances where defendant was unfit. Therefore, the court did not err in finding defendant

       fit for trial during the fitness restoration hearing. See People v. Robinson, 221 Ill. App. 3d 1045,

       1050 (1991) (where the circuit court reviewed the psychiatrist report, had the opportunity to

       observe defendant’s demeanor, and determined defendant was taking her medication, minimal due

       process was satisfied).

                                                         5
¶ 11          In coming to this conclusion, we reject defendant’s reliance on People v. Gillon, 2016 IL

       App (4th) 140801, as the facts in Gillon are distinguishable from the instant case. Defendant cites

       Gillon for the proposition that out-of-court judicial review of a stipulated report is insufficient

       without in-court discussion of the report’s bases and opinions. However, the Gillon court held the

       circuit court erred in accepting the parties’ stipulation based on the cumulative effect of

       circumstances that “gave rise to pivotal concerns questioning defendant’s fitness.” Id. ¶ 26. In

       Gillon, the evaluation evaluating defendant’s fitness was conducted only two weeks after he was

       found unfit by the circuit court. Id. ¶ 28. The court did not inquire about how defendant was

       restored to fitness so quickly. Id. Additionally, the Fourth District noted the evaluation was

       conducted by a social worker and not a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist, which potentially

       necessitated a more thorough analysis. Id. ¶ 29. Finally, defendant’s in-court behavior was

       paranoid and agitated, resulting in outbursts that warranted his removal from the courtroom. Id.

       ¶ 30. Unlike Gillon, the report here was based upon an evaluation conducted approximately six

       months later by a licensed clinical psychologist. Moreover, the court observed defendant during

       the hearing and questioned him to verify he was currently taking his medication. Defendant was

       responsive, nonhostile, and nothing in the record suggests defendant displayed any concerning

       behaviors that would have given rise to circumstances that would have prompted further inquiry.

       See People v. Mounson, 185 Ill. App. 3d 31, 37 (1989) (determination of fitness was proper where

       the circuit court reviewed the stipulated report, briefly questioned defendant, and observed

       defendant’s responsive and nonhostile replies). Therefore, the circuit court properly exercised its

       discretion in determining defendant’s fitness for trial.

¶ 12                                           III. CONCLUSION

¶ 13          The judgment of the circuit court of Kankakee County is affirmed.

                                                         6
¶ 14   Affirmed.

                   7