People v. Sielck
| Decision Date | 29 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-13-0049,2-13-0049 |
| Citation | 2014 IL App (2d) 130049 -U |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFREY R. SIELCK, 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 Lake County.
Honorable John T. Phillips, Judge, Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: Defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise the defense of insanity at defendant's trial on home invasion charges. Also, defendant's sentence of 14 years' imprisonment was not excessive given the gravity of the offense and other relevant considerations.
¶ 2 Defendant, Jeffrey Sielck, appeals his conviction for home invasion (720 ILCS 5/12-11(a)(2) (West 2008)). He contends that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise an insanity defense at trial. Alternatively, he claims that his 14-year sentence of imprisonment was excessive. We reject both contentions and affirm.
¶ 4 During the day on December 26, 2009, defendant dropped off his son Zachary at a birthday party in Wauconda. That evening, defendant and his son, Jeff Jr. (Jeff), went to the home of John and Karol Stevens. At some point beforehand, defendant had placed a metal sheet under the front of his shirt. What occurred at the Stevens' house when defendant and Jeff arrived was variously described at trial. Defendant and Jeff each emerged from the incident with multiple wounds. Defendant's injuries were particularly severe. A wound to his head destroyed his left eye, fractured his left orbital bone, and caused subdural hemorrhaging. Defendant also had damage to several internal organs, and his right arm was broken and bullets were lodged inside it. Defendant was transported to Advocate Lutheran General Hospital (Lutheran General) where he underwent exploratory abdominal surgery followed by a colostomy. Defendant also had reconstructive surgery on his orbital bone using a bone graft. Defendant remained at Lutheran General until his discharge on January 26, 2010. In February 2010, he was charged with two counts of home invasion (720 ILCS 5/12-11(a)(2) (West 2008)). Both counts alleged that he wrongfully entered the Stevens' home and intentionally injured Karol Stevens.
¶ 5 In his ineffectiveness claim, which he brings for the first time on appeal, defendant cites several sources from which he believes trial counsel could have fashioned an insanity defense. Defendant cites: (1) several psychological evaluations of him by court-appointed psychologists; (2) the evidence at trial; and (3) his presentence investigation report (PSI report), which includes interviews with family members and friends as well as records of defendant's hospitalization after the incident and prior to his arrest. There is no dispute that the specific information defendants cites from the PSI report for his ineffectiveness claim was accessible to trial counsel when planning trial strategy. See People v. Morris, 335 Ill. App. 3d 70, 79 (2002) (). Consequently, the only question for our review is whether trial counsel should have realized from this information that an insanity defense was viable.
¶ 7 On March 10, 2010, defendant's trial counsel reported to the court that he had a bona fide doubt of defendant's fitness to stand trial. Counsel moved for a fitness evaluation of defendant. The court granted the motion, and defendant was evaluated by Dr. Karen Chantry, a psychologist employed by Lake County. In her written report of March 31, 2010, Dr. Chantry concluded that defendant was fit to stand trial. She noted that, due to a gunshot wound to the head, defendant had suffered a period of cognitive impairment, namely delusional thinking, while hospitalized. Defendant saw several psychiatrists during that time. Defendant denied to Dr. Chantry that he had any mental health treatment prior to December 2009. Defendant also denied that he was currently delusional. Dr. Chantry found that defendant had no "significant mental deficits" but had "grandiose" thoughts and unrealistic expectations of others. She diagnosed defendant with a mood disorder NOS (with mild agitation) and narcissistic personality traits.
¶ 8 On May 7, 2010, defense counsel reported to the court that he again had doubts as to defendant's fitness. According to counsel, defendant claimed that there were dead bodies in the jail, that his own children were dead, and that he was going to be sworn in as Vice-President of the United States. Defendant also stated that hospital personnel wanted to give him a 100% blood transfusion rather than operate on his arm, and that he believed a police officer was impersonating him. The court addressed several questions to defendant and found no bona fide doubt of his fitness.
¶ 9 The following week, defense counsel reported that defendant was no longer speaking to him. Counsel also continued to insist that defendant was delusional. Counsel reiterated thedelusional statements he reported at the prior hearing, and also reported that defendant claimed to be meeting with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In a colloquy with the court, defendant claimed that the transport guards had a difference of opinion with the physicians as to defendant's proper medical treatment. Defendant made a vague reference that the guards felt he was not "safe" in the hospital. The court ordered that defendant sit for another evaluation with Dr. Chantry.
¶ 10 In her report of May 21, 2010, Dr. Chantry observed that defendant appeared for the interview in shackles because he had threatened a jail guard. Dr. Chantry noted that jail records indicated that defendant became delusional during a one-week period in late April and early May 2010. On April 29, defendant became more withdrawn and was placed on suicide watch "due to comments he made about the surgery he was supposed to have." Defendant also claimed on that date that his children were dead. On April 30, defendant claimed that if he tapped his arm bracelet, he would be released from jail. On May 2, defendant accused a jail guard of being a Chinese spy and threatened to kill her. On May 3, defendant claimed there was a torture chamber in the jail. On May 9, defendant was removed from suicide watch because he was longer expressing delusional thoughts. Dr. Chantry noted that defendant had also been delusional during his stay at Lutheran General Hospital, claiming he was a federal marshal. At that time, his blood was tested to determine if a physical malady was causing this erratic behavior. The test was negative for infection or other medical condition. Dr. Chantry noted the possibility that defendant's delusions were caused by the trauma of his injuries. Dr. Chantry also said, however: "While unclear, given the information available to me, it does appear that [defendant] may have been delusional at the time of his arrest as well, and this would not account for the cause being related to the consequences of being shot."
¶ 11 Defendant told Dr. Chantry that he lacked a complete recollection of the evening of December 26, 2009. Defendant claimed he went to the wrong house to pick up his son. Defendant said to the woman who answered the door that he was there to pick up his son. The woman said " 'Oh,' " and disappeared into the house, leaving the door slightly ajar. After waiting for a short time, defendant pushed on the door and slipped, falling onto the threshold. Defendant acknowledged that he might have grabbed the woman as he fell, but he denied attempting to choke her.
¶ 12 Dr. Chantry reported that defendant did not express any delusional or bizarre thoughts when he sat for the May 2010 evaluation. Regarding the statements he made in late April and early May, defendant stated that he had merely dreamed that his children were dead. He also claimed that he was "just being sarcastic" when he called the jail guard a Chinese spy. Since there was no evidence that defendant was malingering when he made those odd statements, Dr. Chantry believed that defendant was in denial about his delusional period. According to Dr. Chantry, it was unclear whether defendant's delusions would recur, as his symptoms were not typical of a delusional disorder. She again diagnosed defendant with a mood disorder, but on this occasion added that he had "agitation and episodic delusional thinking." Dr. Chantry also added a diagnosis of "Brief Psychotic Disorder, With Marked Stressors, in Remission." She ruled out "Episodic Delirium Due to Medical Circumstances." Dr. Chantry opined that defendant currently was fit to stand trial.
¶ 13 On June 21, 2010, defense counsel notified the court that the defense was stipulating to defendant's fitness, but believed there were "some mental health issues." Counsel indicated that he had issued a subpoena to Lutheran General for records of defendant's hospitalization.
Counsel anticipated the records would be "useful for some mitigation purposes and [for] discussing this case with the State."
¶ 14 On October 21, 2010, defense counsel noted that he had received all pertinent records from Lutheran General. Counsel had discussed with defendant and his family the possibility of retaining an expert "to help with some mental health aspects of the case," but the family could not financially afford an expert. Counsel anticipated that, if negotiations with the State did not progress, the defense would file a petition for financial assistance so that it could retain an expert.
¶ 15 In November 2010, defendant filed a motion requesting appointment of a mental health expert. At the next...
To continue reading
Request your trial