In re Larry B.

• Decision Date: 04 September 2009
• Docket Number: No. 5-08-0344.,5-08-0344.
• Citation: 914 N.E.2d 1243
• Parties: In re LARRY B., a Person Asserted to Be Subject to the Involuntary Administration of Psychotropic Medication. (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Larry B., Respondent-Appellant).
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

914 N.E.2d 1243

In re LARRY B., a Person Asserted to Be Subject to the Involuntary Administration of Psychotropic Medication (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Larry B., Respondent-Appellant).

No. 5-08-0344.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

September 4, 2009.

Barbara A. Goeben, Legal Advocacy Service, Illinois Guardianship & Advocacy Commission, Alton, IL, Patricia Werner, Staff Attorney, Veronique Baker, Director, Legal Advocacy Service, Illinois Guardianship & Advocacy Commission, Des Plaines, IL, for Appellant.

Randall Rodewald, Randolph County State's Attorney, Chester, IL, Patrick Delfino, Acting Director, Stephen E. Norris, Deputy Director, Sharon Shanahan, Contract Attorney, Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Mt. Vernon, IL, for Appellee.

Justice WELCH delivered the opinion of the court:

Larry B., the respondent, appeals from the June 25, 2008, order of the circuit court of Randolph County finding him subject to the involuntary administration of psychotropic medications pursuant to section 2-107.1 of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (Code) (405 ILCS 5/2-107.1 (West 2008)). The respondent argues that the trial court's finding that he met the statutory criteria for forced medication was against the manifest weight of the evidence. He seeks the reversal of the trial court's order. The State has filed a confession of error. For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court's order.

Prior to discussing the case, we note that the appellate court has a duty to consider its jurisdiction on appeal and dismiss the appeal if jurisdiction is lacking. St. Elizabeth's Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 371 Ill.App.3d 882, 883, 309 Ill.Dec. 400, 864 N.E.2d 266, 268 (2007). The issues raised on appeal from the order entered in this case, which order expired 90 days after its entry (405 ILCS 5/2-107.1(a-5)(5) (West 2008)), could be considered moot. Nevertheless, we will address the questions raised in this appeal under the "public-interest exception" to the mootness doctrine because they are capable of repetition yet might evade review because of the short duration of the orders. In re Mary Ann P., 202 Ill.2d 393, 401-02, 269 Ill.Dec. 440, 781 N.E.2d 237, 242-43 (2002); In re John R., 339 Ill.App.3d 778, 781, 275 Ill.Dec. 119, 792 N.E.2d 350, 353 (2003).

We also note that although the State has filed a confession of error, the appellate court is not relieved of its duty to perform its judicial function thereby; it is obligated to independently examine the errors confessed in order to protect the public interest. Young v. United States, 315 U.S. 257, 258-59, 62 S.Ct. 510, 511, 86 L.Ed. 832, 834-35 (1942); In re Brandon L., 348 Ill.App.3d 315, 318, 284 Ill.Dec. 197, 809 N.E.2d 763, 766 (2004).

BACKGROUND

On August 2, 2007, Larry B. was admitted to Elgin Mental Health Center after he was found unfit to stand trial in Cook County on multiple charges of attempted murder, aggravated discharge of a firearm, aggravated battery, and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. On June 6, 2008, due to his aggressive and threatening behavior, he was transferred to Chester Mental Health Center (Chester MHC). At Chester MHC, he continued to be aggressive, threatening, paranoid, and disruptive. His physical aggression toward staff members twice necessitated the use of full leather restraints. The respondent was compliant about taking 300 milligrams of oral Seroquel (quetiapine fumarate), which is used to treat the symptoms of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, at bedtime for his mood instability. See In re Lisa P., 381 Ill.App.3d 1087, 1094, 320 Ill.Dec. 552, 887 N.E.2d 696, 702 (2008).

On June 19, 2008, the respondent's psychiatrist, Basheer M. Ahmed, M.D., filed in the circuit court of Randolph County a petition seeking permission for the administration of involuntary treatment. The petition detailed the respondent's history of mental illness and treatment, his criminal history, and his then-current mental status. It stated that although the respondent was compliant at that time about taking Seroquel, his mental illness made it "very unlikely that he [would] continue to comply with his Seroquel." The petition listed a total of 14 oral and injectable antipsychotic medications, mood stabilizers, and drugs to treat the potential side effects of the other medications that his psychiatrist sought to administer to the respondent. The proposed dose, frequency, and mode of administration were set out in writing for each medication; the monitoring tests for the drugs were detailed as well. The petition also set forth the benefits that could be anticipated from each drug, as well as the common side effects of the various medications. It stated that the respondent would need periodic blood tests to monitor the level of drugs in his system and prevent side effects from the drugs. The petition and the notice of the date of the hearing on the petition were served on the respondent and his Randolph County public defender and his Cook County counsel in his criminal case. The respondent's Cook County public defender acknowledged service of the petition.

On June 25, 2008, the petition was heard by the court. The petition itself was, however, never entered into evidence by the State. Dr. Ahmed testified about the respondent's symptoms of psychiatric illness and his past treatment. He asserted that the respondent was "on emergency[-]enforced medications" and that, without emergency enforcement, he would not take his medications. He detailed the respondent's mental status and stated that he wanted to administer to the respondent the medications in the dosages that were set out in the petition and to monitor him with the requested tests. The doctor was of the opinion that the benefits of the proposed medications outweighed the risks that they entailed. He stated that he and the respondent had discussed the proposed medications and their potential side effects. Dr. Ahmed testified that the respondent had been on emergency-enforced medication with Seroquel for a short time, that he had exhibited no improvement in his mental status in the previous weeks because the dose of Seroquel was "very small," and that although he had reported "some vague, inconsistent[,] and unreliable side effects, [they] did not see any side effects objectively besides some sedation." The psychiatrist stated that the respondent lacked the capacity to participate meaningfully in medication decisions and that a good-faith attempt to find someone who held a durable power of attorney for his health care decisions had been unavailing. Dr. Ahmed did not describe the nature of the tests that he sought permission to administer to the respondent in conjunction with his enforced medication. The respondent testified in a manner that demonstrated his paranoia, narcissism, delusions, grandiosity, and lack of rational thought processes. He told the court that although he was not mentally ill, he had nonetheless been voluntarily taking Seroquel every day.

The court found the respondent to be a person who had a serious mental illness who was subject to involuntary treatment, and the court granted the petition to administer the psychotropic medications in the dosages set forth in the petition. The court's written order included a chart of the medications; the prescribed dosages, frequency, and mode of administration; and the testing procedures that were authorized to monitor the respondent's medicated status. The respondent filed the instant appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Generally, a trial court's order permitting the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication will not be reversed unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re C.S., 383 Ill.App.3d 449, 451, 322 Ill.Dec. 88, 890 N.E.2d 1007, 1010 (2008). "A judgment will be considered against the manifest weight of the evidence `only when an opposite conclusion is apparent or when the findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on evidence.'" In re Louis S., 361 Ill.App.3d 774, 779, 297 Ill. Dec. 739, 838 N.E.2d 226, 231 (2005) (quoting In re John R., 339 Ill.App.3d 778, 781, 275 Ill.Dec. 119, 792 N.E.2d 350, 353 (2003)).

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

The respondent contends that the trial court's order authorizing the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication must be reversed. He asserts that he was denied due process by the State's failure to present sufficient evidence to support the grant of the petition for involuntary treatment. He also argues that the reversal of the order is mandated because his appointed counsel provided inadequate assistance.

DISCUSSION

Initially, we observe that if a petition for the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication is granted and the object of the petition responds well to the medication and adjunct care, a respondent may well be restored to fitness to stand trial. The mere fact that he has attained fitness and remains fit through the continued use of psychotropic medication will not shield him from prosecution. See 725 ILCS 5/104-21(a) (West 2004) (a respondent who is receiving psychotropic medication is not presumed unfit to stand trial solely because the respondent is taking psychotropic medication); People v. Mitchell, 189 Ill.2d 312, 331, 245 Ill.Dec. 1, 727 N.E.2d 254, 266-67 (2000); People v. Woodard, 367 Ill.App.3d 304, 320, 305 Ill. Dec. 82, 854 N.E.2d 674, 690 (2006). Public records of the Cook County sheriff's office, of which the court may take judicial notice (People v. Monroe, 366 Ill.App.3d 1080, 1097, 304 Ill.Dec. 432, 852 N.E.2d 888, 904 (2006)), disclose that as of October 16, 2008, the respondent was in the custody of the Cook County sheriff's department following his transfer from Chester MHC.

I. Petitions for Involuntary Administration of Medication

The Illinois Supreme Court has observed that the involuntary administration of...