People v. Tuduj

• Decision Date: 23 April 2014
• Docket Number: No. 1–09–2536.,1–09–2536.
• Citation: 2014 IL App (1st) 092536,9 N.E.3d 8,380 Ill.Dec. 758
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Tom TUDUJ, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2014 IL App (1st) 092536

9 N.E.3d 8

380 Ill.Dec. 758

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Tom TUDUJ, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 1–09–2536.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division.

March 21, 2014.

Rehearing Denied April 23, 2014.

Michael J. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg, and Caroline E. Bourland, all of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Miles J. Keleher, and Douglas P. Harvath, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Justice PALMER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a bench trial, defendant Tom Tuduj was found guilty of first degree murder and disarming a peace officer. Defendant was sentenced to a term of 40 years' imprisonment for murder and to a consecutive term of 5 years' imprisonment for disarming a peace officer. On appeal, defendant contends that: (1) the State failed to present evidence that defendant was not involuntarily intoxicated; (2) his attorneys were ineffective for failing to request a second fitness hearing and the trial court abused its discretion by failing to sua sponte order a second fitness hearing; (3) the trial court abused its discretion and denied defendant a fair sentencing hearing when it declined his attorneys' request for a continuance prior to the sentencing hearing; and (4) defendant received an excessive sentence. We affirm.

¶ 2 Prior to trial, defense counsel asked the court for an order allowing defendant to be given a psychiatric and psychological evaluation. The State had no objection and the trial court granted the request. After the State received the defense psychiatric reports, it requested that defendant be evaluated for his fitness to stand trial. Defendant was later evaluated by a psychiatrist, Dr. Andrew Kulik, and a psychologist, Dr. Christofer Cooper, of Forensic Clinical Services. Both doctors submitted reports concluding that defendant was fit to stand trial and legally sane at the time of the offense.

¶ 3 At a hearing on April 2, 2008, the prosecutor told the court that the doctors “on both sides” agreed that defendant was fit to stand trial and that neither the State nor the defense had a bona fide doubt as to defendant's fitness. Defense counsel responded, “I don't believe that we do, Judge, but since the issue was raised, we thought we should probably spread that of record.”

¶ 4 At a hearing on April 25, 2008, defense counsel told the court that the defense was investigating whether defendant's actions on the day of the murder were caused by defendant having been prescribed Wellbutrin (an antidepressant) and Ambien (a sleep aid). Defense counsel stated that the defense investigation indicated that these medications likely caused defendant to commit the crime and raised the possibility of an involuntary intoxication defense. The prosecutor later told the court that he did not believe a fitness hearing was necessary because not even the experts that were hired by the defense had found that defendant was unfit to stand trial. Defense counsel responded:

“Your Honor, I think we can go ahead and do it with this understanding. I want to make the representation to the court that I have spent several hours with [defendant], and I'm not questioning his fitness at all; but for purposes of the record, if the court wishes to have the fitness hearing, that's fine.”

In response, the court stated that “[i]n an abundance of caution, I think that that's the wise way to proceed.” The prosecutor and defense then confirmed their understanding that defendant was not currently on any psychotropic medications. The parties stipulated to the expertise of the two doctors from Forensic Clinical Services who evaluated defendant and to the foundation for the doctors' reports. Finally, the parties stipulated that both doctors would opine, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that defendant was fit to stand trial. The court then stated that it had read the doctors' reports and heard from counsel on each side and that it found defendant fit to stand trial.

¶ 5 At a hearing on April 2, 2009, the two attorneys representing defendant requested to withdraw from the case. Those attorneys stated that they had an ongoing disagreement with defendant over the defense strategy but that recently it had become an “absolute conflict” to continue to represent defendant. The defense attorneys told that the court that defendant had long maintained that they were ineffective because defendant wanted his attorneys to hire experts regarding the defense of sleep walking as a result of having taken Ambien. Defense counsel stated that the defense had researched the issue but had not hired experts to pursue that defense. However, defendant had recently threatened to file a lawsuit against the attorneys and to “destroy [their] reputation” because they had not pursued defendant's Ambien theory. Defense counsel noted that defendant had not been on any medication since he was released from the hospital following his arrest and speculated that, although he was “not an expert,” “there may be part mental illness problem in this communication too.” Defendant's other attorney then addressed the court and stated that “I believe, and based on three doctors we have, that Tom is bipolar and he is refusing medication at jail.” Defense counsel stated that the doctors hired by the defense believed defendant should be on medication and that, according to one defense expert, “long * * * diatribes” that defendant had written to the State's experts were evidence that defendant was in a “hypermanic state.” According to defense counsel, defendant “broke into a rap” during a recent visit at jail and told his attorneys he would not allow them to call any witnesses to say he was mentally ill. Counsel believed that defendant would understand what his attorneys “were talking about” if he was medicated. Counsel disagreed with the State's contention that defendant was simply trying to delay the proceedings, to which the court responded, “he (defendant) wouldn't be the first defendant who wanted to sit in Cook County Jail forever as opposed to go [ sic ] to trial.” Defense counsel then stated that “there's probably a real fitness issue here, too, but knowing the system, [defendant] probably would come back fit.”

¶ 6 Defendant personally addressed the court during this hearing. Defendant said he wanted his attorneys to withdraw but that he did not want to represent himself and had not hired another lawyer who was ready for trial the following Monday. Defendant confirmed his understanding that the case was 2 1/2 years old and set for trial and that that the victim's relatives were traveling from outside of the country to be present for trial. Defendant told the court that he wanted his attorneys to pursue a theory that the side effects of the mixture of drugs he was allegedly taking, including Ambien, caused him to commit the crime while sleepwalking. The court asked the defense attorneys if they had researched this issue. Defendant's attorneys responded that they had done so and they were not proceeding with an Ambien defense based upon the information they received from the experts. Defense counsel also explained that defendant believed they would receive different information if they spoke to “other experts in the field.”

¶ 7 Defendant again addressed the court and explained his concern about the experts that had been retained by his attorneys and the defense they intended to present. The trial court observed that defendant had “very talented, very experienced” attorneys who were the “best of the best here in Cook County.” When asked if they were ready for trial, defense counsel stated “we are ready, Judge, as ready as lawyers can be who ha[ve] a client who wants us to withdraw from the case.” The court stated that defendant was engaging in “dilatory tactics” to delay the case on the eve of trial, that the issue between defendant and his attorneys was one of “strategic disagreement” and that it did not believe that there was any need to get another attorney involved. The court further noted that the defense had looked into the issues defendant wanted them to raise and that the case was over two years old and there had been “numerous continuances granted to look at these issues.” Accordingly, the court denied defendant's attorneys' motion to withdraw. The court also observed that the case had only been before it for a few court dates, after having been recently transferred from another judge's call, but that “today and based on my observations on the last court dates, it is clear to me that [defendant] understands where he is, what he is doing, and that he is here in the courtroom and that he is understanding what I'm saying and is able to express himself to me here in court.”

¶ 8 At trial, the State first called Christopher Haase, who testified that he worked for the victim, Gary Poter, at Poter Construction and Development at the time of the incident. On the morning of May 16, 2006, Haase heard a noise from the victim's office and went to investigate. Haase saw defendant's left hand on the victim's neck and the victim coated in blood from the neck down. The victim yelled for Haase to get defendant off him, so Haase grabbed defendant from behind and pulled him away from the victim. The victim took two steps before falling down. While Haase struggled with defendant, office coworkers Jim Koback and William Toby Sandier came to help. Another employee called 911 and the police took defendant into custody. Haase testified that the murder weapon was one of the office kitchen knives. He noted that on the day before the incident, defendant had a performance evaluation and defendant looked visibly upset afterward. Haase did not notice anything unusual about defendant's demeanor in the days leading up to the review.

¶ 9 William Toby...