People v. Marcus S. (In re Marcus S.)

Decision Date18 January 2022
Docket NumberAppeal No. 3-17-0014
Citation2022 IL App (3d) 170014,191 N.E.3d 1273,455 Ill.Dec. 565
Parties IN RE MARCUS S., a Person Found Subject to Involuntary Commitment and Involuntary Medication (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Marcus S., Respondent-Appellant).
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Veronique Baker and Laurel Spahn, of Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commission, of Hines, for appellant.

Karen K. Donnelly, State's Attorney, of Ottawa (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Richard T. Leonard, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 The trial court ordered the respondent-appellant, Marcus S., subject to involuntary commitment at an inpatient mental health treatment facility and to involuntary treatment through the administration of psychotropic medications. Marcus appeals those judgments, arguing that (1) the State's petitions for involuntary commitment and involuntary treatment were untimely, (2) the State failed to present evidence as to certain essential elements of the involuntary commitment and involuntary medication statutes in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (Code) ( 405 ILCS 5/1-100 et seq. (West 2016)) and otherwise failed to satisfy various mandatory requirements of those statutes, and (3) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

¶ 2 FACTS

¶ 3 Marcus is also the appellant in In re Marcus S. , 2022 IL App (3d) 160710, ––– Ill.Dec. ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, which had initially been consolidated with this appeal. In that case, Marcus appeals involuntary commitment and treatment orders that were issued by the circuit court of Peoria County shortly before the orders of the circuit court of La Salle County at issue in this case. Pursuant to the Peoria circuit court's orders, Marcus was committed to Unity Point Methodist Hospital (Unity Point) in Peoria for a period up to 90 days where he received mental health treatment, including the involuntary administration of psychotropic medications. We will repeat facts stated in the Peoria appeal only as necessary to explicate the issues presented in this appeal.

¶ 4 On December 3, 2016, 32 days after the involuntary commitment and medication orders were entered by the circuit court of Peoria County, Marcus S. was involuntarily admitted to OSF St. Elizabeth Medical Center in Ottawa (OSF) for psychiatric care. According to Dr. Joseph Chuprevich, Marcus's treating psychiatrist at OSF, Unity Point "let [Marcus] go and a week later he ended up at St. Francis emergency room" in Peoria. Dr. Chuprevich stated that Unity Point did not want Marcus back, so OSF was contacted. Although Dr. Chuprevich acknowledged the possibility that Marcus was still under a court order for ongoing treatment, neither Marcus's counsel, nor the State, nor the trial court investigated the issue further or sought to obtain Marcus's prior court records.

¶ 5 OSF filed a petition for involuntary commitment under the Code on December 22, 2016, 19 days after Marcus was involuntarily admitted to OSF. Accordingly, the petition was untimely. In addition, the petition did not name any of Marcus's relatives, as mandated by the Code. No one testified that Marcus was ever given a copy of the petition, as required by the Code.1 Marcus's counsel did not object to the State's violations of the Code. He did not argue that the petition was untimely or deficient in any respect. Nor did he suggest that the State had failed to prove that the petition had been given to Marcus or that any other mandatory procedural and substantive requirements of the Act were not satisfied.

¶ 6 On the same day, Dr. Chuprevich filed a petition for involuntary medication under the Code. The petition consisted of a preprinted form that merely listed the allegations that must be included in a petition for involuntary treatment under the Code (i.e. , it simply listed the statutory elements and the legal and factual conclusions that must be proven to obtain an order for involuntary treatment). Although the petition directed the preparer to "briefly explain reasons [why the] individual meets the criteria for each of the following [statutory elements]," Dr. Chuprevich included a reason for only one element, i.e. , that other, less restrictive services were explored and found inappropriate "because of non-compliance." The State provided no reasons in support of the other required elements. Nevertheless, Marcus's counsel did not move to dismiss the petition for failing to state a cause of action.

¶ 7 The trial court appointed a La Salle County public defender to represent Marcus and ordered the State to provide a typed predisposition report as required by section 3-810 of the Code ( 405 ILCS 5/3-810 (West 2016) ). In response, the State filed a one-page form preliminary treatment plan with handwritten information filled in. Marcus's counsel did not object to the State's failure to file a complete predisposition report that fully complied with section 3-810 ’s requirements.

¶ 8 During the commitment hearing, Dr. Chuprevich testified that he began treating Marcus on December 4, 2016. Thereafter, Dr. Chuprevich and a nurse practitioner saw Marcus on an alternative basis. Dr. Chuprevich diagnosed Marcus as suffering from a schizoaffective disorder

with delusional thinking. He defined a "delusion" as a "firm, fix[ed], false belief" that evidence to the contrary does not dissuade. Dr. Chuprevich opined that Marcus had "delusional-type thinking" because Marcus was "firmly convinced that his father cuts the vaginas out of deer" that he has killed and "puts them up on a board," and Marcus could not be dissuaded from these false beliefs. However, Dr. Chuprevich acknowledged that he had not spoken with Marcus's family. Dr, Chuprevich further believed that Marcus had "disorganized thinking" because he planned to live with the Amish and work as a mason.

¶ 9 Dr. Chuprevich testified that he had spoken with Marcus's parole officer, who told Dr. Chuprevich that he went to Marcus's house at some unidentified time and found cat feces and things that were not "taken care of." He also told Dr. Chuprevich that Marcus had some prior trouble with the legal system. Dr. Chuprevich opined that Marcus might get into trouble again if he were not treated on an inpatient basis. He stated that he did not know whether Marcus had the "wherewithal" mentally or financially to provide for his needs. Although Dr. Chuprevich stated that an intermediate care facility for the mentally ill would be a "great stepping stone" to independent living," Dr. Chuprevich believed it would be inadequate for Marcus because "outpatient has failed repeatedly." He recommended that Marcus be committed for 90 days to "Environmental Health as part of the Department of Human Services." The state's attorney did not ask Dr. Chuprevich about the one-page treatment plan and did not seek to amend the plan to make it a complete written predisposition report.

¶ 10 Marcus testified on his own behalf. He gave the address of his home in Canton, the correct name of his parole officer, and the name of the master mason for whom he was hoping to work. He explained that he had been hospitalized at Unity Point pursuant to a court order after he was denied permission to sign into that facility as a voluntary patient. He stated that he had been begging his doctor not to force him into court because he did not want to have to deal with another "kangaroo court" like the one that had committed him to Unity Point.

¶ 11 The trial court found Marcus subject to involuntary commitment at "McFarland Mental Health-DHS" due to his inability to provide for his basic needs and his refusal of treatment.

¶ 12 The involuntary medication hearing commenced immediately thereafter. The State questioned Dr. Chuprevich about the risks and benefits of the three medications he was asking to prescribe (Haldol

, Cogentin, and Depakote ), whether the benefits of those drugs outweighed their risks, and what tests were necessary for the safe and effective administration of the medications. However, the State did not ask Dr. Chuprevich about Marcus's capacity to make a reasoned decision to accept or refuse medication. Nor did it ask him any questions relating to the other required elements of the involuntary medication statute. For example, the State did not ask Dr. Chuprevich whether written medication information had been provided to Marcus. Marcus's counsel did not object to the State's lack of proof on these issues.

¶ 13 Dr. Chuprevich testified that he knew Marcus had been on Haldol

before and he thought that Marcus might have been ordered by a court to take Haldol. However, Dr. Chuprevich stated that he had not investigated Marcus's records. Neither Marcus's counsel, nor the state's attorney, nor the trial court paused the proceedings so that Marcus's records could be obtained and examined.

¶ 14 Marcus testified he was concerned about the risks of impotence and death that are associated with Haldol

. He stated that he had previously had a bad reaction to Haldol during which he "couldn't breathe," vomited copious amounts of phlegm, and thought he was "dying." Marcus testified that he took Cogentin in an effort to alleviate these bad side effects but that Cogentin "doesn't do a thing" and "just destroys you impotently [sic ]." Marcus testified that his experience with Depakote was that "it made you act like a zombie." Marcus characterized Dr. Chuprevich as a "bully" who had been "strong arming" Marcus the entire time he had been his patient. He stated that Dr. Chuprevich "has not discussed anything with me" and that he had been forcing Marcus to take long-acting Haldol shots and Cogentin even though Haldol was on Marcus's allergies list. Neither the State nor Marcus's counsel asked Dr. Chuprevich about his basis for administering involuntary medication...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • People v. Marcus S. (In re Marcus S.)
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 18 Enero 2022
    ...orders at issue in this case were entered. Those La Salle County circuit court orders are the subject of In re Marcus S. , 2022 IL App (3d) 170014, 455 Ill.Dec. 565, 191 N.E.3d 1273. In that case, the trial court repeated many of the same errors at issue in the instant case.2 That makes the......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT