{
  "id": 5412851,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry J. Wilson, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Wilson",
  "decision_date": "1975-05-01",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 12496-97 cons.",
  "first_page": "229",
  "last_page": "231",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 Ill. App. 3d 229"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "383 U.S. 375",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6171240
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "384-85"
        },
        {
          "page": "821-22"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/383/0375-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.E.2d 455",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill.2d 358",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2860420
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/38/0358-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 S.Ct. 871",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 L.Ed.2d 844",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "369 U.S. 840",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6222531,
        6223111,
        6223720,
        6220521,
        6220815,
        6224019,
        6220244,
        6222811,
        6223422,
        6219935
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/369/0840-05",
        "/us/369/0840-07",
        "/us/369/0840-09",
        "/us/369/0840-03",
        "/us/369/0840-04",
        "/us/369/0840-10",
        "/us/369/0840-02",
        "/us/369/0840-06",
        "/us/369/0840-08",
        "/us/369/0840-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 N.E.2d 187",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 Ill.2d 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2789114
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/22/0471-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.E.2d 479",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 Ill.2d 254",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2908550
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/48/0254-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 N.E.2d 92",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ill.2d 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2900580
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/46/0167-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.E.2d 15",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 Ill.2d 220",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2910316
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/49/0220-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 N.E.2d 181",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 Ill.2d 114",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2903265
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/47/0114-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 N.E.2d 487",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 Ill.App.2d 422",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2577671
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/75/0422-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 N.E.2d 518",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Ill.App.3d 696",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2669375
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/7/0696-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 402,
    "char_count": 5695,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.766,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.092526987874287e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32042640323818106
    },
    "sha256": "440a00b27d3b797146d6ba429b4395bd1f36723985caf98389d8a198ae3a2838",
    "simhash": "1:d25b7c5db352fa93",
    "word_count": 927
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:05.902616+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. Jerry J. Wilson, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant appeals from orders denying, without evidentiary hearing, his petitions in post-conviction following judgments of conviction entered upon his respective pleas of guilty to attempted robbery and to forgery. The causes were consolidated upon appeal.\nThe State\u2019s attorney has failed to meet his obligation to file a brief or present the issues upon the appeal. Upon such circumstances the court in its discretion may reverse the judgments without examination of the merits. (People v. Dossett, 7 Ill.App.3d 696, 288 N.E.2d 518.) It appearing, however, that the ends of justice will be better served by a review upon the merits, we elect to do so. People v. Sanders, 75 Ill.App.2d 422, 220 N.E.2d 487.\nDefendant argues that his pleas of guilty were accepted at a time when pending pleadings \u201c[rjaised a bona fide doubt of his then present fitness to be tried or convicted.\u201d\nThe trial court found \u201c[t]hat the petition does not allege any violations of constitutional rights that are not completely negated by the Report of Proceedings herein.\u201d The report of proceedings upon the taking of the pleas is not made a part of the supplemental record filed. Such finding by the trial court is not referred to in defendant\u2019s argument and we conclude that the accuracy of the finding is not challenged.\nUpon consideration of the petition and matters shown by the record, the court may dismiss the post-conviction petition without hearing. People v. Spicer, 47 Ill.2d 114, 264 N.E.2d 181. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, par. 122 \u2014 6.\nDefendant appeared upon each charge in the original proceedings with retained counsel. On June 29, 1972, he entered a plea of not guilty and trials were set for September 5, 1972. On August 25, 1972, the initial plea was withdrawn and defendant pleaded guilty upon apparent negotiations wherein the indictment for attempted armed robbery was reduced to attempted robbery and sentences for forgery and attempted robbery were to be made concurrent. Hearing in aggravation and mitigation was waived.\nIt appears that on July 21, 1972, between the dates of the initial pleas and the plea finally entered, defendant filed a \u201cmotion for examination of defendant who is in custody.\u201d Without verification \u201cIt is asserted\u201d by motion that defendant has \u201cexperienced a nervous condition\u201d; that although never examined by a doctor he had obtained prescriptions for the condition and concluded that \u201ca medical doctor may be able to give defendant\u2019s attorneys information as to the effect such nervous condition would have on defendant\u2019s conduct and defenses.\u201d\nThe \u201cmotion\u201d does not undertake to allege that defendant was not competent to proceed within the context of the statute. The record does not indicate that defendant\u2019s counsel ever questioned defendant\u2019s competency for purposes of proceeding. The motion did not ask for a psychiatric examination, nor from the record presented here was there ever any other form of such request. At most, the motion appears to be an apparent effort for a form of medical discovery.\nAn allegation of \u201cnervous difficulties\u201d does not raise a bona fide doubt as to competency. People v. Thompson, 49 Ill.2d 220, 274 N.E.2d 15.\nThe petitions presented to the trial court upon post-conviction presented no facts which raised any showing, substantial or otherwise, of a question of competency. The petition merely asserted that the motion had been filed and the conclusion that there was a substantial doubt of defendant\u2019s competence. Such is not sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing. People v. Olson, 46 Ill.2d 167, 263 N.E.2d 92.\nAbsent a strong indication of incompetency, it is not error to fail to hold an unrequested competency examination. (People v. Franklin, 48 Ill.2d 254, 269 N.E.2d 479.) An abandoned request for a competency hearing does not raise a bona fide doubt which requires that the court hold a hearing as to fitness to proceed. (People v. Cleggett, 22 Ill.2d 471, 177 N.E.2d 187, cert, denied, 369 U.S. 840, 7 L.Ed.2d 844, 82 S.Ct. 871; People v. Bracy, 38 Ill.2d 358, 231 N.E.2d 455.) An argument is made that the motion alleged \u201c[a] nervous condition which could have affected his \u2018conduct and defenses\u2019.\u201d Such plainly does not meet the standards necessary to an evidentiary hearing.\nDefendant argues that Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 15 L.Ed.2d 815, 86 S.Ct. 836, so controls the issue as to require reversal and remandment. Such contention grossly ignores the disparate facts between Robinson and this case. In Robinson, the defense presented was that of insanity and defendant introduced testimony as to his psychiatric commitment, aberent conduct over a long period and lay opinion of insanity. That opinion equates the evidence concerning his present insanity with the question of mental incompetence to stand trial. 383 U.S. 375, 384-85, 15 L.Ed.2d 815, 821-22, footnote 6.) This record fails to present any viable evidence of a want of competence to stand trial or to plead.\nThe judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSIMKINS, P. J., and GREEN, J., concur.\nIll. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, par. 104 \u2014 1.\n\u201cFor the purpose of this Article, \u2018incompetent\u2019 means a person charged with an offense who is unable because of a mental condition:\n(a) To understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him; or\n(b) To assist in his defense; # * #\u00bb\u2019",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John F. McNichols and Thomas Nelson, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "No appearance for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry J. Wilson, Defendant-Appellant.\n(Nos. 12496-97 cons.;\nFourth District\nMay 1, 1975.\nJohn F. McNichols and Thomas Nelson, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nNo appearance for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0229-01",
  "first_page_order": 253,
  "last_page_order": 255
}