{ "id": 5798444, "name": "In re JAMES BIGGS (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. James Biggs, Respondent-Appellant)", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Biggs", "decision_date": "1991-09-30", "docket_number": "No. 4\u201491\u20140283", "first_page": "361", "last_page": "364", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "219 Ill. App. 3d 361" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "521 N.E.2d 290", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 Ill. App. 3d 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3471224 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/167/0187-01" ] }, { "cite": "498 N.E.2d 1105", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 Ill. 2d 407", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3173858 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/113/0407-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 517, "char_count": 8340, "ocr_confidence": 0.787, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.360092440234306e-07, "percentile": 0.6353109775898131 }, "sha256": "00e9226a19b3cffe20f40f2120aa89fe39d82a1b15d07b0209027b86adc6896d", "simhash": "1:cb293e8a76a69ea4", "word_count": 1367 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:35:35.632923+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re JAMES BIGGS (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. James Biggs, Respondent-Appellant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE KNECHT\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nRespondent James A. Biggs was involuntarily admitted to the Veterans Administration (VA), for a period not to exceed 60 days after the circuit court of Vermilion County found him to be mentally ill, and unable to provide for his own needs so as to guard himself from serious harm. This was apparently an extension of an earlier commitment. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 911/2, par. 3 \u2014 813.) Respondent appeals, alleging the State did not meet its clear and convincing burden of proof, and error in the failure to appoint counsel until the date of trial. We disagree and affirm.\nA petition seeking respondent\u2019s involuntary admission was filed on April 3, 1991. Two certificates, a dispositional report and a treatment plan, were filed on the same date. The notice of hearing, also filed on April 3, 1991, set the matter for hearing on April 8, 1991. On that date the case was called for hearing and an assistant public defender was appointed to represent respondent. It is conceded the trial court allowed time before the hearing proceeded for counsel to talk with the respondent and interview the State\u2019s witness.\nRespondent testified as an adverse witness. In addition to colorful delusions involving his status as a presidential advisor, a prophet, and a developer of sophisticated weapons, respondent also testified to his battle with 71h-ioot cannibalistic aliens with the aid of former President Carter. He also believes he is in charge of soldiers who kill enemy soldiers to protect the country. Respondent conceded his need for the medication lithium carbonate, which he willingly takes.\nDr. Noel Johnson, a YA staff psychiatrist, testified and tendered a diagnosis of bipolar disorder as to respondent. He asserted respondent might be in danger from other citizens who would react adversely to his delusions, and might also endanger himself from lack of sleep and proper food as a result of his manic behavior. Dr. Johnson opined respondent\u2019s ability to get a meal or go to the grocery store for food would be a \u201c50-50 proposition.\u201d He also had not seen respondent act violently but wondered as to whether he might act on some of his false ideas. He opined that respondent was more a danger to himself than to others.\nThe trial court found there was clear and convincing evidence respondent was mentally ill, suffered from bipolar disorder mania and, as a result, was unable to provide for his own needs so as to guard himself from serious harm. The trial court went on to note, \u201cSpecifically, that he is unable to protect himself sufficiently so that if anyone taking exception to some of his delusional views would challenge him and that he would be at serious risk [to] himself.\u201d\nThe petition alleged respondent was subject to involuntary admission because he might reasonably be expected to inflict serious physical harm upon himself or another in the near future, and he was unable to provide for his basic needs so as to guard himself from serious harm. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 9IV2, pars. 1 \u2014 119(1), (2).) The trial court found only the second allegation had been proved by clear and convincing evidence. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 9IV2, par. 3 \u2014 808.\nThe record is more than sufficient to support a finding of mental illness, and respondent does not dispute the diagnosis. The evidence is also sufficient to establish respondent is unable to provide for his basic needs so as to guard himself from serious harm.\nDr. Johnson\u2019s testimony, while not extensive, supports the trial court\u2019s conclusion. The witness suggested some citizens might ridicule or harm respondent in response to his bizarre ideas. He also concluded respondent had a poor prognosis but his behavior could be improved with a longer hospitalization and, if he stayed on his medication, which he characterized as a \u201cbig if,\u201d he would have far fewer hospitalizations. He also noted the typical course of mania would be false thinking, plus excess physical and nervous energy which leads to exhaustion.\nWe accord deference to a trial court\u2019s decision on involuntary admission. The record supports the conclusion respondent may fail to eat or sleep or take his medication and become exhausted so as to cause himself serious harm. While no evidence was presented that any person has ever physically abused him because of his strange ideas, or verbally assaulted him because of his delusions, the trial court could conclude he was at risk to harm himself or be harmed by others.\nThe trial court is in the best position to determine credibility and weigh evidence. The trial judge also had the opportunity to see and hear respondent testify about his delusions. No one could question the determination respondent is mentally ill. However, mental illness alone will not justify commitment. (People v. Lang (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 407, 498 N.E.2d 1105.) Given respondent\u2019s lengthy history of mental illness, his several month stay in the YA hospital prior to hearing, and his previous stay at the same YA hospital in 1989 and 1990 (all of which information is part of the record), the bizarre nature of his testimony, and the psychiatrist\u2019s opinion, we believe the trial court\u2019s decision to commit respondent was not erroneous.\nThe trial court also failed to appoint counsel at the time the matter was set for hearing as required by section 3 \u2014 805 of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (Code) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 91V2, par. 3 \u2014 805). The State contends the public defender\u2019s office was appointed more than two months prior to the hearing. This assertion is apparently based on a misreading of the common law record. On January 24, 1990, the trial court appointed the public defender\u2019s office to represent respondent on a petition for involuntary judicial admission filed January 19, 1990.\nThe record suggests that petition was never heard on the merits but respondent was nonetheless committed for 60 days. We are unable to determine what role counsel played in protecting respondent\u2019s rights on that petition, but the appointment of counsel on a petition in January 1990 is of no assistance to respondent on another petition in April 1991, the latter being the basis for this appeal.\nWhile the record here suggests the assistant public defender did speak to respondent prior to evidence being heard, it also shows counsel was not appointed until the day of the hearing. We conclude respondent suffered no prejudice since his appointed lawyer had enough time to talk to him about an independent psychiatric exam and his right to jury trial, and enough time to briefly interview the psychiatrist witness. However, counsel should be appointed at the time the hearing is set. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 91V2, par. 3 \u2014 805; In re Elkow (1988), 167 Ill. App. 3d 187, 521 N.E.2d 290.) Strict adherence to the Code is necessary to protect the rights of persons involuntarily placed within the mental health system. Appointing counsel on the day of hearing simply invites problems.\nWe recognize trial judges are not always aware a petition is pending until it is actually called for hearing. The State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s office files the petition and sends the notice of hearing. We suggest procedures be developed to bring the petition for commitment to the court\u2019s attention immediately so counsel can be appointed well in advance of the scheduled hearing. This will permit adequate preparation, better serve respondents whose liberty interests are at stake, and avoid claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Under the circumstances of this case, we are not prepared to conclude the failure to appoint counsel until the date of trial was sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Vermilion County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSTEIGMANN and McCULLOUGH, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE KNECHT" } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert E. Mclntire, Public Defender, of Danville (William T. Donahue, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.", "Craig H. DeArmond, State\u2019s Attorney, of Danville (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and Elliott Turpin, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re JAMES BIGGS (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. James Biggs, Respondent-Appellant).\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201491\u20140283\nOpinion filed September 30, 1991.\nRobert E. Mclntire, Public Defender, of Danville (William T. Donahue, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nCraig H. DeArmond, State\u2019s Attorney, of Danville (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and Elliott Turpin, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0361-01", "first_page_order": 383, "last_page_order": 386 }