People v. Garcia
| Decision Date | 16 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 1–10–3590. |
| Citation | 2012 IL App (1st) 103590,367 Ill.Dec. 297,981 N.E.2d 1025 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Baldomero GARCIA, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
2012 IL App (1st) 103590
981 N.E.2d 1025
367 Ill.Dec. 297
The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Baldomero GARCIA, Defendant–Appellant.
Docket No. 1–10–3590.
Appellate Court of Illinois,
First District, Sixth Division.
Nov. 30, 2012.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 2013.
[981 N.E.2d 1028]
Michael J. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg, and Sarah Curry, all of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Tasha-Marie Kelly, and Koula A. Fournier, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
Justice R. GORDON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
[367 Ill.Dec. 300]¶ 1 After a jury trial, defendant Baldomero Garcia was convicted of two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault and sentenced to two eight-year consecutive sentences in the Illinois Department of Corrections for his conduct toward L.P. (the victim), the five-year-old daughter of defendant's live-in girlfriend. On appeal, defendant argues: (1) the State did not prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) the trial court erred by admitting the victim's out-of-court statements into evidence, (3) the trial court erred by permitting the State's expert to testify to a medical opinion for which there was no foundation, and (4) defendant's due process rights were violated when he did not receive a fitness hearing and no independent judicial determination of defendant's fitness was made. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
¶ 3 On April 7, 2008, defendant was charged with multiple counts of predatory criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual abuse, and criminal sexual abuse, for conduct occurring between January 1, 2008, and March 5, 2008. Defendant was charged with a total of 48 counts.
¶ 5 On October 6, 2008, the State filed a motion seeking a hearing pursuant to section
[981 N.E.2d 1029]
¶ 6 On November 18, 2008, defendant filed a motion to suppress any statements that defendant made to police, and on January 12, 2009, defendant filed an amended motion to suppress, claiming that he was not advised of his Miranda rights and did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive them.
¶ 8 On January 12, 2009, the parties came before Judge John Scotillo in Rolling Meadows 1 on both the State's section 115–10 motion and defendant's motion to suppress. Prior to the hearing, Assistant Public Defender (APD) Larry Kugler informed the trial court that he had attempted to speak with defendant several times about the case and had a bona fide doubt of defendant's fitness; consequently, defense counsel requested a fitness evaluation, which the court ordered.
¶ 9 On March 5, 2009, a letter was received by the trial court from Andrew Segovia Kulik, M.D., a forensic psychiatrist with Forensic Clinical Services, stating that Dr. Kulik attempted to evaluate defendant on February 23, 2009, but was unable to render a fitness opinion because defendant was uncooperative during the interview. Dr. Kulik believed that defendant's refusal to cooperate was volitional in nature and not due to any severe psychiatric illness.
¶ 10 On the same day, APD Kugler requested that defendant be reevaluated, since he still had a bona fide doubt of defendant's fitness. After speaking with defendant, APD Calvin Aguilar, APD Kugler's partner on the case, agreed, stating that he also had a bona fide doubt of defendant's fitness based on defendant's responses. The trial court entered another court order for an evaluation of defendant's fitness to stand trial, telling APD Kugler that “[w]e have to have a hearing if you have a bona fide doubt.”
¶ 11 On April 23, 2009, the parties returned before the court concerning defendant's fitness evaluation. The trial court read a letter 2 dated April 17, 2009, in which Dr. Kulik stated that he attempted to evaluate defendant for a second time and was unable to render an opinion due to defendant's continued refusal to cooperate. The trial court suggested the matter be set for trial, but APD Kugler stated that “I'm unable to represent this defendant. I still have a bona fide doubt as to his fitness. I'm not a psychiatrist. All that I know is that I have a client who is not working with me. I'm unable to work with this client.” The State stated that in light of APD Kugler's statement that he had a bona fide doubt of defendant's fitness, the matter needed to be set for a fitness hearing. The trial court entered an order transferring defendant's case to 26th and California for the purpose of a fitness hearing.
¶ 12 On May 12, 2009, another fitness evaluation was ordered by Judge Joseph Claps at 26th and California. On July 1, 2009, a letter was received from Roni Seltzberg, M.D., a staff forensic psychiatrist with Forensic Clinical Services, that stated that Dr. Seltzberg attempted to evaluate defendant on June 30, 2009, and that defendant responded that he “ ‘didn't remember’ or ‘didn't know’ ” to most of the [367 Ill.Dec. 302
[981 N.E.2d 1030]
questions posed to him concerning fitness issues. Dr. Seltzberg stated that “[t]his was in contradistinction from his apparent ability to retain explanations of courtroom terminology that he reported having no previous knowledge of, and further in contradistinction to other information that he did offer upon questioning.” Dr. Seltzberg opined that defendant was malingering. Dr. Seltzberg concluded that “[a]t this time, there is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Garcia is unaware of the nature of the charges or purpose of the proceedings against him, nor that he would be unable to assist counsel in his defense if he chose to do so,” but stated that she would nevertheless refer him for psychological testing, which could further help to determine defendant's fitness.
¶ 13 On July 23, 2009, another letter from Dr. Seltzberg was received. The letter stated that psychological testing was scheduled for July 22, 2009, but had been canceled because an interpreter was not available. The letter requested a continuance in order to complete the evaluation, and the court granted a continuance. Several additional letters requesting continuances were subsequently received, and on September 18, 2009, a letter from Dr. Seltzberg to the trial court was received in which Dr. Seltzberg concluded within a reasonable degree of medical and psychiatric certainty that defendant was fit to stand trial based on her review of the available records, including psychological testing and clinical examinations.
¶ 14 On the same day, the parties came before the court for the fitness hearing. The court and APD Arthur Willis engaged in the following colloquy:
“APD WILLIS: Your Honor, this matter was transferred to us for fitness testing back in May of this year. We finally have a report from Dr. Seltzberg. The report states that Mr. Garcia is fit to stand trial.
THE COURT: You don't want a hearing?
APD WILLIS: Fitness is presumed, Judge. There's no hearing.”
The case was transferred back to Judge Scotillo in Rolling Meadows the same day.
¶ 15 On September 24, 2009, the parties came before Judge Scotillo and discussed the proceedings before Judge Claps:
“APD DANIEL NARANJO: Before this was sent to 26th Street, I believe Mr. Garcia was—this is Larry Kugler's client. I believe he's a public defender client, Judge.
THE COURT: I don't know. I think maybe that you're right. He was sent for a fitness hearing.
APD NARANJO: Correct.
THE COURT: Do you know the outcome of that?
APD NARANJO: I don't.
ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEY [ (ASA) ] LYNN
PALAC: Your Honor, he was found fit.
THE COURT: He was found fit?
ASA PALAC: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.”
¶ 16 On October 14, 2009, the parties came before the trial court to set a date for defendant's motion to suppress and the State's section 115–10 hearing. The trial court recounted the proceedings concerning fitness:
“THE COURT: Okay. The defendant was-the defense indicated that they had a bona fide doubt as to fitness. A hearing was held, and he was found fit.”
¶ 17 On October 26, 2009, the parties again came before the court, and the ASA informed the court that, in reviewing the court file, she noticed that Forensic Clinical
[981 N.E.2d 1031]
¶ 18 On January 7, 2010, a letter from Dr. Seltzberg to the trial court was received. In the letter, Dr. Seltzberg stated that she evaluated defendant a number of times, most recently on December 2, 2009, concerning defendant's sanity at the time of the offense and his ability to understand his Miranda rights. Dr. Seltzberg opined, to a reasonable degree of medical and psychiatric certainty, that defendant was legally sane at the time of the offense. Due to defendant's lack of cooperation, Dr. Seltzberg had no opinion as to defendant's ability to understand his Miranda rights.
¶ 19 No other proceedings concerning defendant's fitness were held.
¶ 21 On February 11, 2010, the parties came before the trial court for a hearing on the State's section 115–10 motion to admit certain statements made by the victim into evidence....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McNeal
... ... Ciborowski , 2016 IL App (1st) 143352, 88, 404 Ill.Dec. 163, 55 N.E.3d 259. 29 However, the admission of an expert's testimony requires an adequate foundation establishing that the information upon which the expert bases his or her opinion is reliable. People v. Garcia , 2012 IL App (1st) 103590, 107, 367 Ill.Dec. 297, 981 N.E.2d 1025. While it is the function of the trial court to determine whether the foundational requirements have been met, that determination presents a question of law. Garcia , 2012 IL App (1st) 103590, 107, 367 Ill.Dec. 297, 981 N.E.2d ... ...
-
People v. Tuduj
... ... (quoting Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 180, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975)). Therefore, the question of whether a bona fide doubt of fitness exists is a fact-specific inquiry. People v. Garcia, 2012 IL App (1st) 103590, ¶ 123, 367 Ill.Dec. 297, 981 N.E.2d 1025. “Because the trial court is in the best position to observe a defendant's conduct, whether a bona fide doubt of fitness to proceed exists is a matter that lies within the discretion of that court.” People v. Simpson, 204 ... ...
-
People v. Choate
... ... Stephanie's statement to Reeves was an unprompted spontaneous outcry. Courts have found such statements to be particularly reliable, especially when they are consistent with other statements made by the child. See People v. Garcia , 2012 IL App (1st) 103590, 97-98, 367 Ill.Dec. 297, 981 N.E.2d 1025. Courts likewise have recognized the reliability of recorded statements made shortly after the original outcry, such as Stephanie's interview with Miller. See Bowen , 183 Ill. 2d at 115-16, 232 Ill.Dec. 800, 699 N.E.2d 577 ... ...
-
People v. Alexander
... ... 720 ILCS 5/1212(f) (West 2010). Here, the presence of semen could have originated from a prior sexual partner since G.R. did not testify that defendant ejaculated during the assault. In addition, a lack of vaginal trauma is not inconsistent with penetration. People v. Garcia, 2012 IL App (1st) 103590, 89, 367 Ill.Dec. 297, 981 N.E.2d 1025 (finding penetration without evidence of vaginal trauma). Although the pelvic exam did not reveal any tears or abrasions, which are often caused by forced entry, nurse Wojas testified that it is not common for such injuries to ... ...