People v. Cleggett

• Decision Date: 22 September 1961
• Docket Number: No. 35493,35493
• Citation: 22 Ill.2d 471,177 N.E.2d 187
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Robert CLEGGETT, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 187

177 N.E.2d 187

22 Ill.2d 471

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Robert CLEGGETT, Plaintiff in Error.

No. 35493.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Sept. 22, 1961.

Samuel Papanek, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John T. Gallagher, and William L. Carlin, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.

HERSHEY, Justice.

Defendant was sentenced to the penitentiary following pleas of guilty to seven indictments, six of which charged him with the crime of armed robbery and the other with assault with intent to commit murder and assault with a deadly weapon. His principal contention on this writ of error is that the court erred in accepting his pleas of guilty when there was presented to the court a bona fide issue as to sanity of the defendant.

The facts, insofar as they relate to this contention, show that the defendant, while represented by the public defender, originally entered pleas of not guilty, that later counsel of defendant's choice entered the case and requested a behavior clinic examination, and that the court ordered such an examination and report. Still later the defendant, in the presence of his counsel withdrew his pleas of not guilty and pleaded guilty to each indictment. The trial judge properly advised the defendant of the consequences of his pleas of guilty before allowing him to change his pleas. The record does not show that the behavior clinic report was made.

Defendant argues that there was presented to the trial court an issue as to the then sanity of the defendant, and that, under these circumstances, the court erred in accepting the pleas of guilty. We are unable to agree with this contention. We accept the premise that when there is a bona fide issue as to defendant's sanity or when facts are brought to the attention of the court or the court itself observes facts which create a bona fide doubt as to the sanity of a defendant, the court should not accept a plea of guilty until that doubt has been resolved. We do not, however, find in this record any such facts creating a bona fide doubt as to defendant's sanity sufficient to require that the trial judge cause a sanity hearing to be conducted before accepting a plea of guilty.

This court has held that it is the duty and responsibility of a defendant or his counsel to raise the question of whether the defendant is insane at the time of trial. People v. Reck, 392 Ill. 311, 64 N.E.2d 526; People v. Maynard, 347 Ill. 422, 179 N.E. 833; People v. Hart, 333 Ill. 169, 164 N.E. 156. When, before or during trial, facts are brought to the attention of the court, either by suggestion of defense counsel or the State or by the court's own observation, which raise a bona fide doubt of defendant's then sanity, a duty devolves upon the court to cause a sanity hearing to be held. People v. Burson, 11 Ill.2d 360, 143 N.E.2d 239.

Here there appears to have been no previous adjudication of mental incompetency, nor was there any request for a sanity hearing by defendant or his counsel. Neither are there any facts in the record to establish such a bona fide doubt of defendant's sanity as to require the court to cause a sanity hearing to be held. The only suggestion of lack of mental capacity on the part of defendant is the request by his counsel for a behavior clinic examination and report. It is not uncommon for defense counsel to make such a request, and the request may be made for a variety of reasons. Under the circumstances, we do not regard the fact that such a request was made and later abandoned as sufficient to create such doubt of defendant's sanity as to preclude the trial court from accepting a plea of guilty. The fact that defense counsel was willing to have defendant change his plea suggests that he had either satisfied himself that the report would contain nothing to suggest that defendant was insane or that he himself had not sufficient doubt of defendant's sanity to warrant waiting for the report. The trial judge had ample opportunity to observe the defendant on several occasions and apparently observed nothing in defendant's actions to create a doubt of his sanity.

The portion of section 12 of division II of the Criminal Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 38, par. 592) relied upon by defendant does not cover the situation with which we are now concerned. It is there provided, in effect, that if a sanity hearing is held before trial and it is determined that the defendant is insane or feeble minded, he shall not be tried during the continuance of such condition. That provision is of no help in determining the question of when the court is required to hold a sanity hearing before proceeding on the criminal charge. The cases of People v. Varecha, 353 Ill. 52, 186 N.E. 607, and People v. Maynard, 347 Ill. 422, 179 N.E. 833, relied upon by defendant, are also clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. In each of those cases there had been a previous adjudication of mental incompetency and there had been no determination that the defendant had been restored to a condition of mental health. No such factors are present in this case. We hold, therefore, that the court did not err in accepting defendant's pleas of guilty. People v. Robinson, 22 Ill.2d 162, 174 N.E.2d 820.

Defendant also contends that he was not properly arraigned on two of the indictments and that the record does not show that he was given a copy of the list...