People v. Washington
| Decision Date | 16 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-11-1152,1-11-1152 |
| Citation | 2013 IL App (1st) 111152 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MALVIN WASHINGTON, 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.
¶ 1 Held: Where a pro se defendant is representing himself, it is not reversible error for the court to refuse to appoint a lawyer for a fitness hearing, and defendant's trial counsel was not ineffective when a new fitness hearing was not requested, when there was no bona fide doubt of defendant's fitness to stand trial.
¶ 2 Following a bench trial, defendant Malvin Washington was convicted and sentenced to natural life imprisonment for the first-degree murders of Jessie Brown and Jacqueline Lemons, stemming from a robbery in their apartment on January 30, 2007. Prior to trial, defendant fired the assistant public defender (APD) and represented himself over the next 10 months, includinghis own fitness hearing. The trial court adjudicated the pro se defendant fit for trial and later reappointed the public defender, who represented defendant throughout his bench trial.
¶ 3 On this direct appeal, defendant claims: (1) that the trial court erred when it declined to appoint counsel to represent defendant during his fitness hearing; (2) that the trial court committed reversible error when it did not order a new fitness hearing; and (3) that defendant's counsel was ineffective for not requesting a new fitness hearing. In response, the State argues: (1) that there was no bona fide doubt of defendant's fitness for trial; (2) the trial court was not required to appoint counsel for the pro se defendant during the fitness hearing; and (3) defendant was not entitled to a new fitness hearing. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 5 Prior to trial, the assistant public defender informed the trial court that defendant had mental health issues and that he was waiting for a psychiatrist's report to complete a mental health investigation on defendant's behalf. Later, the APD was replaced by a new APD. Defendant then fired the new APD, who withdrew, and defendant elected to represent himself. The State later requested a fitness hearing, and then defendant requested counsel. The trial court denied defendant's request and advised him that he "just can't have an attorney for this, an attorney for that, and then not have it for that." Defendant subsequently represented himself at his own fitness hearing and the trial court found him fit to stand trial.
¶ 6 Several months later defendant requested counsel for trial and the previous APD was reappointed and the case proceeded to a bench trial. The trial court found defendant guilty of the first-degree murders of Jessie Brown and Jacqueline Lemons. Later at a sentencing hearing, afterhearing factors in mitigation and aggravation, defendant was sentenced to natural life in prison. In his appeal, defendant claims only that the trial court erred when it denied him his right to counsel at his fitness hearing and claims his counsel was ineffective when she failed to request a new fitness hearing prior to trial.
¶ 8 Defendant was arraigned on March 14, 2007. In a proceeding on August 16, 2007, defendant complained that he did not receive copies of the police reports in his case, and he informed the trial court that he intended to file a motion at the next court date to proceed pro se. However, defendant did not file a motion at the next proceeding and the assistant public defender continued to represent him.
¶ 9 On January 9, 2008, defendant again told the trial court that he wished to fire his attorney and proceed pro se. When the trial court responded that it would order a behavioral clinical examination (BCX) to determine if defendant was fit to represent himself, the APD interjected and advised the trial court that:
The APD suggested that the trial court forgo a BCX and wait to receive the psychiatrist's reports. Defendant stated that he had been waiting for over one year for trial and that he was requesting aspeedy trial, but the trial court advised him that it would wait for the psychiatric reports before it would make a determination of defendant's fitness to represent himself.1 At that point, defendant interrupted the trial court and said: "[t]he doctor make that determination," and defendant walked away as the trial court continued to talk to him. The case was then continued several more times, during which the State advised the trial court that it would not seek the death penalty, and the trial court ordered a BCX for fitness to stand trial and set a court date for April 1, 2008, for defendant to be examined.
¶ 10 On April 1, 2008, the trial court received a report from Dr. Peter Lourgos, a psychiatrist, of Forensic Clinical Services, who opined that defendant was fit to stand trial. In his report, Dr. Lourgos wrote that defendant did not appear to evidence any symptoms of mental illness. At an interview, defendant denied having any symptoms of a significant mood, anxiety, or psychotic disorder, and denied being prescribed any medications. During defendant's interview, he demonstrated an understanding of basic court procedure, and correctly defined several legal phrases, such as "plea bargain," "perjury," and "pro se." Defendant was also able to recall his next court date and name of his presiding judge. Dr. Lourgos found that defendant maintained a cynical and sarcastic demeanor towards the legal system and the public defender's office, and defendant believed his attorney was not vigorously working to defend him.
¶ 11 The "Records Reviewed" section of Dr. Lourgos' report indicated that he reviewed four prior evaluations of defendant's fitness for trial, as well as medical records from eight differenthealth centers. While Dr. Lourgos' report identifies the ultimate opinion of each evaluation concerning defendant's fitness to stand trial, it does not explain the basis for the doctors' opinions. The first evaluation was a psychological summary conducted on April 21, 2003, by pschologist Erick Neu of Forensic Clinical Services, which did not provide an opinion of defendant's fitness. However, an addendum to the report on April 30, 2003, opined that defendant was fit to stand trial, while a second addendum found defendant unfit on January 19, 2004. Two additional psychiatric summaries were conducted by Philip Pan, M.D., and Mathew S. Markos, M.D., of Forensic Clinical Services on June 13, 2003, and July 7, 2005, respectively. Both doctors opined that defendant was fit to stand trial. The fourth was a psychiatric report completed by Michael First, M.D., on October 31, 2007, in which he opined that defendant was not competent to stand trial.
¶ 12 Dr. Lourgos' report also states that defendant was hospitalized several times, and that "[t]he majority of [defendant's] hospitalizations involved active use of illicit substances." Dr. Lourgos wrote that his review of defendant's medical records revealed "a significant history of Polysubstance Dependence including opioids, cocaine, and alcohol." Defendant also exhibited "vague, atypical psychotic symptoms such as paranoia and auditory hallucinations," and the "majority of these symptoms appeared to have been induced by psychoactive substances." Dr. Lourgos wrote that defendant admitted to using alcohol, cocaine, cannabis, and heroin for 15 to 20 years. During a recent hospitalization in January 2007, defendant "endorsed daily use of cocaine and alcohol."
¶ 13 The report also states that defendant was adjudicated unfit to stand trial on unrelatedcharges in 2005, and was admitted to the Elgin Mental Health Center for three weeks. The medical records from his treatment reveal that his clinicians did not believe that defendant suffered from an "Axis I Disorder, other than substance abuse," and defendant was suspected of "malingering." Upon his discharge, defendant was diagnosed with "Alcohol Dependence, Cocaine Dependence, Cannabis Abuse, and Personality Disorder, NOS." While Dr. Lourgos acknowledges that other clinical evaluations have reached differing conclusions concerning defendant's psychological health, his report does not explain what those contrary diagnoses were.
¶ 14 On May 1, 2008, defendant appeared before the trial court and again stated that he did not want to be represented by a new APD, who had replaced the previous APD. The new APD told the trial court that defendant had decided that he did not want her representing him. The trial court asked if defendant had received a BCX, and the new APD responded that he had previously been found unfit to stand trial, but since then, he had been reexamined and found fit.2 The trial court provided defendant with a copy of the indictment to review and advised him that he potentially faced a natural life sentence if he were convicted.
¶ 15 After reviewing the indictment, defendant acknowledged that he understood the charges against him. Defendant then requested to have counsel other than the public defender's office appointed, and the trial court denied his request. The trial court then asked defendant to state his age and educational background, to which defendant refused to answer, claiming that such information was already "in the record." The trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial