{ "id": 2691220, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Respondent-Appellee, v. William Mitchell, Petitioner-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Mitchell", "decision_date": "1974-04-10", "docket_number": "No. 58950", "first_page": "197", "last_page": "200", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "19 Ill. App. 3d 197" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "188 N.E. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 Ill. 2d 557", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5356110 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/26/0557-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 N.E. 2d 170", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 Ill. 2d 182", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2801796 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/24/0182-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 N.E. 2d 97", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "20 Ill. 2d 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2739390 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/20/0269-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 N.E. 2d 881", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "412 Ill. 555", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2664850 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/412/0555-01" ] }, { "cite": "201 N.E. 2d 409", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 Ill. 2d 415", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2834385 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "421" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/31/0415-01" ] }, { "cite": "251 N.E. 2d 202", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 Ill. 2d 124", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2842982 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "128" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/43/0124-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 N.E. 2d 247", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 Ill. 2d 399", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2895733 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "404" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/45/0399-01" ] }, { "cite": "278 N.E. 2d 79", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 Ill. 2d 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2911616 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "236" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/50/0234-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 417, "char_count": 7568, "ocr_confidence": 0.768, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.5726384947290515e-08, "percentile": 0.35009859648187985 }, "sha256": "d902dfb9f05f1ad4130e6a85d93df2e164925d13e08074d08ee726cbc0094ba7", "simhash": "1:82af92d55b82cbbc", "word_count": 1265 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:53:04.796688+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Respondent-Appellee, v. William Mitchell, Petitioner-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE ADESKO\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn January 3, 1968, William Mitchell, petitioner in the instant appeal, was found guilty of the offense of aggravated kidnapping following a bench trial before the Honorable Jacques Heilingoetter in the Circuit Court of Cook County. At this time petitioner pleaded guilty to two charges of indecent liberties and a charge of bail jumping. He was sentenced to serve concurrent sentences of from 15 to 30 years for aggravated kidnapping, 10 to 20 years for the first indecent liberties charge and 5 to 10 years for the second, and not less than 1 year nor more than 5 years for bail jumping.\nOn August 5, 1969, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, par. 122 et seq.) At a hearing held on September 28, 1970, this petition was dismissed on motion of the State. This order was reversed by the Illinois Supreme Court, which remanded the cause for a new hearing so that an amended petition could be filed after a free transcript of the pre-trial sanity hearing and the trial itself had been provided. Counsel was appointed to assist petitioner and a \u201csupplementary petition\u201d was filed on January 29, 1973. This petition was dismissed on the State\u2019s motion without an evidentiary hearing.\nPetitioner appeals this order of dismissal, claiming that the trial judge had committed error when he directed that petitioner be found competent to stand trial despite the fact that the testimony in his regard had raised several questions which should have properly been submitted to the jury.\nIn a post-conviction proceeding the petitioner has the burden of proof to show that there has been a substantial deprivation of his constitutional rights. (People v. Watson, 50 Ill. 2d 234, 236, 278 N.E. 2d 79; People v. Smith, 45 Ill. 2d 399, 404, 259 N.E. 2d 247.) Further, an evidentiary hearing is not necessary where \u201cthe Circuit Court, upon a motion to dismiss a post-conviction petition, may render its decision on the basis of what is contained in the pleading to which the motion is directed, considered with the transcript of trial or other proceedings.\u201d (People v. Morris, 43 Ill. 2d 124, 128, 251 N.E. 2d 202.) The question before this \u00a1court is, therefore, whether the petition and transcript of the hearing were sufficient to allow the court below to determine that petitioner had been competent to stand trial without holding an evidentiary hearing to determine this.\nIn the course of petitioner\u2019s trial, a jury was impaneled and a hearing into petitioner\u2019s competency to stand trial was held. The State called only one witness to testify, Dr. William H. Haines, the director of the Behavior Clinic of the Circuit Court of Cook County. He had conducted two examinations of petitioner, one 14 months before the trial and One 6 months before the trial. Based on these examinations and his observation of petitioner, Dr. Haines stated that in his opinion William Mitchell was able to cooperate with his counsel and understood the nature of the charges against him. On cross-examination, Dr. Haines stated the petitioner used alcohol and that there was a \u201cpossibility\u201d that petitioner had neurotic tendencies and an unstable personality. Dr. Haines was further aware that petitioner had been admitted to Elgin State Hospital in 1949 and had been discharged from the Army for a \u201ccharacter disturbance.\u201d The Army medical report found petitioned was \u201cnot motivated for treatment.\u201d The date of this discharge was October 26, 1944. The defense presented no witnesses and the trial judge directed that the jury find defendant competent to stand trial.\nIn order to be considered competent to stand trial, a defendant must be able to understand the nature of the proceedings, the nature of the charge, and be able to cooperate with his counsel. (People v. Brown, 31 Ill. 2d 415, 421, 201 N.E. 2d 409.) The testimony presented at the hearing shows that by this test, petitioner was competent to stand trial. To meet his burden, as noted above, petitioner would have to show that some bona fide doubt as to his competence existed in the record before the court. In his brief, petitioner concedes that \u201cno particular fact in petitioner\u2019s psychiatric history by itself would raise a bona fide doubt about his competency, [n]either is there any one fact which alone would preclude the trial judge from directing a verdict of competency.\u201d He urges, however, that the prior hospitalization at Elgin State, the nature of his discharge from the military, and the other factors taken as a whole raised sufficient questions to require that the issue of competency be submitted to the jury.\nWe disagree. The record of the proceedings at trial and the competency hearing and the petition itself disclosed nothing which would have raised a bona fide doubt as to petitioner\u2019s competency to stand trial. In a proper case, where a defendant understands the nature of the charges and proceedings against him and where he is able to cooperate with his counsel, a verdict of competency may be directed. (People v. Reeves, 412 Ill. 555, 107 N.E. 2d 881.) The fact that petitioner had, some time previous to this trial, spent time in Elgin State Hospital or that he had been discharged from the military for \u201ccharacter trait disturbances\u201d or the possibility of \u201cneurotic tendencies\u201d is not relevant to the question at issue \u2014 petitioner\u2019s competency to stand trial at the time of trial. Prior mental problems or even prior commitment to a mental hospital do not raise a bona fide doubt as to a defendant\u2019s competency. (People v. Zerba, 20 Ill. 2d 269, 170 N.E. 2d 97; People v. Richeson, 24 Ill. 2d 182, 181 N.E. 2d 170). In a case somewhat similar to the instant case (People v. Woods, 26 Ill. 2d 557, 188 N.E. 2d 1), Dr. Haines testified as the only witness regarding defendant\u2019s competency to stand trial. Notwithstanding the fact that the defendant had been confined to a mental institution 8 years prior to the trial, the direction of a verdict of competency was sustained. The court held that where Dr. Haines had testified that defendant understood the nature of the charges against him and was able to cooperate with his counsel, he was competent to stand trial and the fact of prior confinement for mental problems did not raise a bona fide doubt as to his competency.\nWe are of the opinion that the direction of the verdict of competency was correct. We have read the entire record presented to us for review and find that it was not error for the trial court to dismiss the petition without an evidentiary hearing. \u201cThe only relevant factors in determining whether a defendant is competent to be placed on trial are that he understand the nature of the charges against him and that he be able to co-operate with counsel.\u201d (People v. Brown, supra, at 421.) Dr. Haines\u2019 testimony, on the record as presented, would then settle the inquiry into these factors and shows that petitioner was competent to stand trial.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment Affirmed.\nBURMAN and DIERINGER, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE ADESKO" } ], "attorneys": [ "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Thomas F. Finegan, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.", "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Kenneth L. Gillis and Sharon Hope Grossman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Respondent-Appellee, v. William Mitchell, Petitioner-Appellant.\n(No. 58950;\nFirst District (4th Division)\nApril 10, 1974.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Thomas F. Finegan, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Kenneth L. Gillis and Sharon Hope Grossman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0197-01", "first_page_order": 221, "last_page_order": 224 }