{
  "id": 3560461,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL P. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Johnson",
  "decision_date": "1984-02-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 82\u2014506",
  "first_page": "859",
  "last_page": "862",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "121 Ill. App. 3d 859"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "253 N.E.2d 431",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 Ill. 2d 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2842791
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/43/0328-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.E.2d 21",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill. 2d 173",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2863648
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/37/0173-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "410 N.E.2d 1151",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "396 N.E.2d 1359",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ill. App. 3d 590",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5604698
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/78/0590-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "416 N.E.2d 17",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 Ill. App. 3d 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5533629
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "246"
        },
        {
          "page": "247"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/92/0244-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 Ill. App. 3d 793",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3172120
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/88/0793-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "367 N.E.2d 733",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ill. App. 3d 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3387928
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/52/0524-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "381 N,E.2d 677",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 N.E.2d 239",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Ill. 2d 360",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2786129
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/11/0360-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "381 N.E.2d 677",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 Ill. 2d 421",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5443843
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/72/0421-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "383 U.S. 375",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6171240
      ],
      "weight": 6,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/383/0375-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "420 U.S. 162",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11643095
      ],
      "weight": 6,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/420/0162-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 397,
    "char_count": 6541,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.75,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5779427981630923e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6798363533935762
    },
    "sha256": "5d5d5e3bf6ef129cb81b8d07436096bc9ff096764b9cea1797309a384d94d069",
    "simhash": "1:ab93f0c76b48778b",
    "word_count": 1118
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:31:09.364868+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL P. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE WHITE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn December 7, 1979, a jury convicted defendant, Michael P. Johnson, of armed robbery, unlawful use of weapons and unlawful restraint. A sentence was not imposed at that time, however, because it was determined that defendant was unfit for sentencing. On December 12, 1981, a restoration order finding defendant fit to be sentenced was entered. Defendant was thereafter sentenced to a term of 22 years\u2019 imprisonment. The only issue on appeal is whether there existed a bona fide doubt as to defendant\u2019s fitness to stand trial.\nA defendant has a right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial. (Drope v. Missouri (1975), 420 U.S. 162, 43 L. Ed. 2d 103, 95 S. Ct. 896; Pate v. Robinson (1966), 383 U.S. 375, 15 L. Ed. 2d 815, 86 S. Ct. 836; People v. Murphy (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 421, 381 N.E.2d 677; People v. Burson (1957), 11 Ill. 2d 360, 143 N.E.2d 239.) A defendant is unfit to stand trial if, because of his mental or physical condition, he is unable to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 104 \u2014 10.) The issue of a defendant\u2019s fitness for trial may be raised before, during, or after trial. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 104 \u2014 11(a).) Once facts are brought to the attention of the trial court, either from observation of the defendant or by suggestion of counsel, which raise a bona fide doubt of a defendant\u2019s fitness to stand trial, the court has a duty to hold a fitness hearing. (People v. Murphy (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 421, 381 N,E.2d 677; People v. Burson (1957), 11 Ill. 2d 360, 143 N.E.2d 239; People v. Burnside (1977), 52 Ill. App. 3d 524, 367 N.E.2d 733.) A trial continued after a bona fide doubt of defendant\u2019s fitness is raised but not resolved is in violation of due process of law. (Pate v. Robinson (1966), 383 U.S. 375, 15 L. Ed. 2d 815, 86 S. Ct. 836; People v. Burnside (1977), 52 Ill. App. 3d 524, 367 N.E.2d 733.) Whether a bona fide doubt has been raised is a decision resting largely within the discretion of the trial court. (People v. Murphy (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 421; People v. Turner (1980), 88 Ill. App. 3d 793, 410 N.E.2d_, 1151.) The trial court\u2019s order refusing a fitness hearing should be overturned only when the trial court has abused its discretion. People v. Davenport (1980), 92 Ill. App. 3d 244, 416 N.E.2d 17.\nCertain factors are to be considered in determining a defendant\u2019s fitness to stand trial. These factors include: counsel\u2019s assertion that defendant is unable to cooperate in his defense, prior treatment for mental disability, and defendant\u2019s demeanor at trial. (People v. Davenport (1980), 92 Ill. App. 3d 244, 246.) The presence of several of these factors indicates that a defendant is unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense. People v. Davenport (1980), 92 Ill. App. 3d 244, 247.\nIn the case at bar, counsel alerted the court to the fact that defendant was unable to cooperate with him. Defendant did not speak to counsel from September until the start of trial. Defendant only smiled when counsel tried to explain his rights and other aspects of the case to him. Counsel informed the court that defendant\u2019s inability to cooperate was part of his mental illness. Counsel also represented to the court that Dr. Lorimer of the Psychiatric Institute, informed him defendant was unfit for trial \u2014 that defendant suffered from episodic dysfunctions during which defendant did not know what was occurring. Moreover, defendant\u2019s demeanor prior to trial and at trial indicated that defendant was prey to serious mental problems. Defendant insisted that he was in court because someone had \u201ctried to kill him in a hospital two years ago with his hand.\u201d Defendant also believed that one of the deputies was trying to kill him. Twice counsel interrupted the testimony of prosecution witnesses because defendant was upset by the presence of a deputy in the courtroom. Counsel informed the court that defendant believed one of the deputies hit him, that defendant\u2019s veins were \u201cpopping on the side of his head,\u201d and that defendant kept looking at the deputy. On several occasions defendant complained that his head hurt, and defendant was once removed from court while howling, his body jerking convulsively. Four deputies were required to subdue defendant. Defendant also attempted suicide while in the lockup awaiting the start of trial. Several deputies observed defendant stabbing his arm with a broken razor blade.\nAn additional factor persuading us to believe that there existed a bona fide doubt as to defendant\u2019s fitness to stand trial is that defendant was found unfit for sentencing. We are aware that a defendant could be fit to stand trial and yet later be unfit for sentencing. (People v. Martinez (1979), 78 Ill. App. 3d 590, 396 N.E.2d 1359.) But there exists a risk that a defendant found unfit for sentencing may also have been unfit during trial. (See People v. Turner (1980), 88 Ill. App. 3d 793, 410 N.E.2d 1151.) In the instant case, the finding that defendant was unfit for sentencing together with factors such as defendant\u2019s demeanor at trial, and defense counsel\u2019s representations to the court, lead us to conclude that there existed a bona fide doubt as to defendant\u2019s fitness to stand trial.\nSince a bona fide doubt existed as to defendant\u2019s fitness to stand trial, the trial court was statutorily required to conduct a fitness hearing. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 104 \u2014 11(a).) Such a hearing was not conducted. In view of the difficulties inherent in conducting a fitness hearing several years after a trial (Drope v. Missouri (1975), 420 U.S. 162, 43 L. Ed. 2d 103, 95 S. Ct. 896; People v. McLain (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 173, 226 N.E.2d 21), we remand this case for a new trial. People v. Thomas (1969), 43 Ill. 2d 328, 253 N.E.2d 431; People v. McLain (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 173; People v. Turner (1980), 88 Ill. App. 3d 793.\nReversed and remanded.\nMcNAMARA and McGILLICUDDY, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE WHITE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Thomas F. Finegan, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Richard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Michael E. Shabat, Marie Quinlivan, and Harry H. Semrow, Jr., Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL P. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 82\u2014506\nOpinion filed February 1, 1984.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Thomas F. Finegan, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nRichard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Michael E. Shabat, Marie Quinlivan, and Harry H. Semrow, Jr., Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0859-01",
  "first_page_order": 881,
  "last_page_order": 884
}