People v. Joyner
| Decision Date | 20 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-12-3704,1-12-3704 |
| Citation | 2014 IL App (1st) 123704 -U |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT JOYNER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.
No. 06 C6 61014
The Honorable Michele M. Simmons, Judge Presiding.
HELD: Defense counsel's brief and singular comment misstating the burden of proof regarding defendant's insanity defense did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel based on the record before us; counsel clearly knew the appropriate burden of proof, the trial court properly evaluated his cause according to it in this bench trial, and counsel's decision not to present other witnesses in support of his defense was clearly one of strategy, and not of incompetence, and did not result in any prejudice. In addition, defense counsel's performance was not in any way deficient.¶ 1 Following a bench trial, defendant Robert Joyner (defendant) was convicted of attempted first degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, aggravated discharge of a firearm and aggravated battery. He was sentenced to 27 years' imprisonment. He appeals, contending that he was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel where defense counsel did not know the correct burden of proof for an insanity defense, which, he claims, led counsel to forgo presenting evidence that would have supported that defense. He asks that we reverse his conviction and remand his cause for a new trial. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 3 Defendant, a Gulf War veteran, was charged with first degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, aggravated discharge of a firearm and aggravated battery in relation to events that occurred on the morning of September 17, 2006, at a gas station in Dolton, Illinois. In mid-2009, a hearing was held to determine defendant's fitness to stand trial. The State presented the testimony of Dr. Nishad Nadkarni, a staff psychiatrist for Forensic Clinical Services who had evaluated defendant on six occasions between 2007 and 2009. Dr. Nadkarni had reviewed his own psychiatric summary, court proceedings, other psychiatric evaluations, and defendant's criminal history and VA records. He testified that during his evaluations, defendant appeared to have a cognitive understanding of the fitness issue at hand, his criminal charges in the instant cause, the role of courtroom personnel and the nature of legal proceedings, and that he was in touch with his surroundings and reality.
¶ 4 Dr. Nadkarni further testified that, from his review of defendant's clinical reports, particularly those from Hines VA Hospital and Cermak Health Services, it was his opinion thatdefendant was a malingerer. Dr. Nadkarni pointed to notations in these records previously diagnosing defendant as such in both 2004 and 2007. These records described, for example, reports by defendant to those staffs that he had devices implanted inside him, but that he "bursts out laughing when questioned more closely about this," and that he "[w]as noted to be neatly groomed, laughing and joking with [staff], was coherent, logical, and relevant in his thoughts." Dr. Nadkarni stated that in the multiple records he reviewed, defendant was either given no diagnosis for mental illness or was given a diagnosis of malingering. While defendant was diagnosed with possible psychotic disorder, this was based only on his personal complaints, and the way he presented and functioned did not correlate to a diagnosis of typical or bona fide mental illness.
¶ 5 With respect to treatment, Dr. Nadkarni testified that he did not find any treatment for mental illness in any of defendant's records. While defendant had been prescribed various psychotropic medications at times, he did not continue on them. Defendant also had not received any consistent psychotropic treatment since he was remanded to jail in 2006 for the instant cause and he was not receiving any such treatment during any of the times Dr. Nadkarni examined him. Dr. Nadkarni explained that it was "very atypical for somebody with a bona fide chronic mental illness" to not receive such treatment, come to the attention of medical personnel or subjectively complain about it during his time in custody, which, for defendant, was now over three years. In addition, when defendant did report alleged symptoms, such as auditory hallucinations, he was not able to present further details about these symptoms, which Dr. Nadkarni found to be "again atypical" of someone with a bona fide mental illness. Dr. Nadkarni noted that chronic mentalillnesses present with early onset and the patient's functioning becomes progressively worse without medication to the point of being unable to cope; he did not see this with defendant but, rather, found him to be "fairly highly functioning" as he was married, was employed and also maintained a mistress all inconsistent with someone suffering from a chronic mental illness.
¶ 6 With respect to fitness, Dr. Nadkarni testified that defendant understood the charges against him, knew he was represented by counsel, and acknowledged he could help her by answering questions, being truthful and doing legal research. Defendant also articulated his understanding of the differences between a bench and jury trial, and between a guilty plea and a plea bargain. He was evasive, however, when Dr. Nadkarni attempted to talk to him about his criminal background which consisted of some 15 prior arrests, including domestic battery and weapons violations. Ultimately, it was Dr. Nadkarni's expert opinion that defendant was fit to stand trial.
¶ 7 Dr. Carl Wahlstrom, an expert in forensic psychiatry, testified on defendant's behalf. Dr. Wahlstrom had reviewed the police records in the instant cause along with defendant's VA and other psychological records, Dr. Nadkarni's reports, defendant's social history and a letter written by defendant, and had examined defendant four times over 10 months. Dr. Wahlstrom testified that all of defendant's medical records indicated that he suffered from mental illness, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He further stated that he always considers the possibility of malingering in any psychiatric case but, contrary to Dr. Nadkarni's opinion, he believed defendant was not malingering a serious mental illness based on his age, veteran status, numerous admissions to theVA and his personal examinations.
¶ 8 Regarding these, Dr. Wahlstrom testified that, during his first examination of defendant, when asked about his understanding of the proceedings against him and court personnel, defendant was "very tangential" and "difficult to follow at times." While he understood some things, Dr. Wahlstrom found defendant to be unfit at that time and presenting with many symptoms indicating mental illness. During his second examination, Dr. Wahlstrom noted that defendant seemed "better;" he was more focused, not tangential and any symptoms he had were not interfering in the discussion of the instant cause. Dr. Wahlstrom opined at that time that defendant was fit to stand trial. At the third examination, Dr. Wahlstrom found defendant to be "consumed with illogical, irrational, bizarre thoughts" about his case and spoke about implanted devices in his body. Because he believed defendant could not understand the nature of the proceedings against him, Dr. Wahlstrom found him to be unfit to stand trial. During their final examination, which occurred on the day before the fitness hearing, Dr. Wahlstrom noted that while defendant still raised irrelevant issues, he was able to be redirected and understood the proceedings against him. Defendant told Dr. Wahlstrom he had been prescribed an anti-psychotic medication, but told him he was not taking it. At the end of the examination, Dr. Wahlstrom found defendant "marginally mentally fit to stand trial." He admitted that, if he evaluated defendant next week, his opinion might change, as it had in the past. Dr. Wahlstrom opined that defendant suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and he believed defendant was not a malingerer but, rather, someone who is mentally ill and in need of treatment. However, Dr. Wahlstrom admitted that defendant had been diagnosed as malingering at both Hines VA in 2004and Cermak in 2007, and that he had not reviewed those records.
¶ 9 Dr. Linda Grossman, a clinical psychologist, also testified on defendant's behalf. Briefly, she stated that she met with defendant several times and found him to be preoccupied with significant delusions and fear. While he understood the legal proceedings against him, she found defendant unfit to stand trial because of his delusions, which included his beliefs that a device had been implanted in his throat and was operated by remote control, that his knee rotated 180 degrees, that there was a device locking his legs, and that his brain could be rotated inside his skull. Dr. Grossman diagnosed defendant with chronic paranoid schizophrenia and probable PTSD and, after reviewing his medical records including the notations of malingering, discredited these and found instead chronic psychotic illness. She admitted, however, that defendant refused to take any test she offered which would have measured whether he was malingering.
¶ 10 Finally, Dr. Peter Lourgos, another psychiatrist at Forensic Clinical Services, testified for the State in rebuttal. Having reviewed defendant's medical records and other evaluations, and having met with him, Dr. Lourgos found defendant fit to stand trial. He noted that, during the...
To continue reading
Request your trial