People v. Dejesus

2020 IL App (1st) 173020-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: August 12, 2020
• Docket: 1-17-3020
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2020 IL App (1st) 173020-U No. 1-17-3020 August 12, 2020 Third Division

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). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 15 CR 12728 ) VICTOR DEJESUS, ) Honorable ) Thomas J. Byrne, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HOWSE delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Ellis and Justice Cobbs concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: Defendant’s conviction for attempt murder is affirmed where the trial court appropriately found defendant fit to stand trial. Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 472, we decline to reach defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s calculation of presentence custody credit.

¶2 Following a bench trial, defendant Victor DeJesus was found guilty of one count of attempt

murder and one count of aggravated battery with a firearm. The trial court merged the aggravated

battery with a firearm count into the attempt murder count and sentenced defendant to 31 years’ No. 1-17-3020

imprisonment for attempt murder. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court performed an

inadequate inquiry into whether he was fit to stand trial and that he is entitled to more presentence

custody credit than the trial court granted. We affirm defendant’s conviction and remand as to

presentence custody credit.

¶3 Defendant was charged by indictment with multiple offenses stemming from an incident

on August 11, 2014. On September 25, 2014, he was arrested for an unrelated offense in Puerto

Rico. Defendant waived extradition on October 9, 2014, and Chicago police department officers

took custody of him on July 23, 2015. The State proceeded on one count of attempt murder (720

ILCS 5/8-4(a) (West 2014); 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2014)) and one count of aggravated

battery with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(e)(1) (West 2014)).

¶4 Defendant first appeared in court on August 24, 2015, and the court appointed a public

defender to represent him. At a June 13, 2016 pretrial status hearing, the court granted a private

attorney leave to substitute as defendant’s counsel. Defense counsel informed the court that he was

trying to procure defendant’s medical records “regarding mental health issues.” On both August 1

and 31, 2016, defense counsel represented that he “may” request a behavioral clinical examination

(BCX) pending receipt and review of the records. Defense counsel informed the court on October

12, 2016, that defendant had a medical history of “diagnosis bipolar.” Counsel added that he would

be requesting a BCX, but needed more time to finish retrieving the records. On December 20,

2016, defense counsel formally requested a BCX and tendered a proposed order, which the court

stated it would sign. 1

1 A copy of the order does not appear in the record.

-2- No. 1-17-3020

¶5 The court received a letter from Dr. Fidel Echevarria of Forensic Clinical Services at a

hearing on February 6, 2017. The first paragraph of the letter read, “Pursuant to Your Honor’s

Order,” defendant was evaluated on January 25, 2017, “for the purpose of assessing his fitness to

stand trial.” Dr. Echevarria found defendant mentally fit to stand trial and legally sane at the time

of the offense. According to Dr. Echevarria, defendant understood the proceedings, was not on

psychotropic medication, and did not need such medication. The court noted that Dr. Echevarria

found defendant “fit to stand trial and mentally sane at the time of his examination.” Defense

counsel stated that he wanted to ask Dr. Echevarria whether he spoke with a physician who “made

a diagnosis” of defendant in Puerto Rico, and pending that conversation, the defense “can probably

stipulate and forgo any hearing on the issue.” The court responded, “If there’s not a bona fide

doubt *** as to the defendant’s state of mind, is there any need for a hearing?” Defense counsel

said he did not think there was. On March 9, 2017, the trial court entered an order allowing defense

counsel to review Dr. Echevarria’s psychiatric summary of defendant’s examination. 2

¶6 On March 30, 2017, defense counsel said he was willing to stipulate “to the findings” in

Dr. Echevarria’s letter. The prosecutor responded, “There’s no issue, Judge. [Defendant] was

found fit to stand trial.” The court stated that Dr. Echevarria’s letter expressed the “opinion that

[defendant] is mentally fit to stand trial” and was “legally sane at the time of the alleged offense.”

At a subsequent pretrial hearing on May 3, 2017, defense counsel stated that defendant “went for

[a] psychological evaluation” at the jail and was told he was “fine.”

¶7 Defendant rejected the State’s offer to plead guilty to aggravated battery with a firearm and

the cause proceeded to trial. The evidence established that on August 11, 2014, defendant entered

2 The psychiatric summary does not appear in the record on appeal.

-3- No. 1-17-3020

the El Taco Nazo restaurant near the 4100 block of West North Avenue and shot the victim, Fredis

Lopez-Serrano, once in the chest from close range. Lopez-Serrano underwent surgery at Cook

County Hospital. The two men never interacted before that day, but immediately prior to the

shooting, defendant asked Lopez-Serrano, “what’s your problem with me?”

¶8 The court found defendant guilty on both counts and denied his motion to reconsider and

for a new trial. Defendant’s presentence investigation report (PSI) revealed that he came from a

“stable” family and did not suffer abuse or neglect as a child. He received As and Bs in high school,

but required special education for attention deficit disorder (ADD) in elementary school. He

attended Triton College from 2012 to 2014. Defendant was injured in a serious vehicular accident

on August 12, 2014, and required 149 stitches in his face. During his incarceration, he received

mental health treatment. He reported a history of panic attacks, and experienced excessive anxiety

and stress due to the case.

¶9 After a sentencing hearing on October 19, 2017, the court merged the aggravated battery

with a firearm count into the attempt murder count and sentenced defendant to 31 years’

imprisonment for attempt murder. It credited defendant with 819 days for presentence

incarceration. Defense counsel argued that defendant deserved additional credit for the time he

spent in custody in Puerto Rico between October 9, 2014, when he waived extradition to Illinois,

and July 23, 2015, when the Chicago police officers took him into custody. The State disagreed,

and the court only credited defendant with time starting from July 23, 2015.

¶ 10 The October 19, 2017 mittimus misstated defendant’s sentence. The court sua sponte

issued a corrected mittimus on October 23, 2017, that did not credit defendant for the four days

between October 19 and 23, 2017.

-4- No. 1-17-3020

¶ 11 On appeal, defendant first argues that the court erred by not conducting an independent

inquiry into his fitness to stand trial, and instead relied on a stipulation to Dr. Echevarria’s findings.

Defendant admits that he did not properly preserve this claim, but argues that we can reach it on

plain error review.

¶ 12 Where a claimed error was not preserved below, the reviewing court can reach the issue on

plain error review when a clear or obvious error occurred and “the evidence is so closely balanced

that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the

seriousness of the error,” or “that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s

trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the

evidence.” People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 48. A defendant’s fitness to stand trial implicates

a fundamental right and is thus cognizable under second prong plain error review. See People v.

Sandham, 174 Ill. 2d 379, 382 (1996); People v. Moore, 408 Ill. App. 3d 706, 710 (2011). We

must first decide if a clear or obvious error occurred. People v. Staake, 2017 IL 121755, ¶ 33.

¶ 13 The due process clause of the fourteenth amendment requires that a defendant be mentally

fit before standing trial. U.S. Const., amend. XIV; People v. Holt, 2014 IL 116989, ¶ 51. A

defendant is presumptively fit to stand trial, plead, and be sentenced, but will be deemed unfit “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.” 725 ILCS 5/104-10 (West 2014). “A

defendant may be competent to participate at trial even though his mind is otherwise unsound.”

People v. Eddmonds, 143 Ill. 2d 501, 519 (1991).

¶ 14 The issue of a defendant’s fitness can be raised by the court or the parties at any time

before, during, or after trial. 725 ILCS 5/104-11(a) (West 2014). If a bona fide doubt as to a

-5- No. 1-17-3020

defendant’s fitness is raised, the court has a duty to hold a fitness hearing. People v. Haynes, 174

Ill. 2d 204, 226 (1996). No fitness hearing is required if the court does not find that a bona fide

doubt exists as to a defendant’s fitness. People v. Hanson, 212 Ill. 2d 212, 217-18 (2004).

¶ 15 At the defendant’s request, the court can order that a qualified expert examine the defendant

to determine if a bona fide doubt as to the defendant’s fitness exists. 725 ILCS 5/104-11(b) (West

2014). The court also has discretion to sua sponte request an examination. 725 ILCS 5/104-11(a)

(West 2014); Hanson, 212 Ill. 2d at 217. The court’s mere act of ordering an examination does not

demonstrate that bona fide doubt exists as to the defendant’s fitness. Hanson, 212 Ill. 2d at 222.

“Whether a bona fide doubt as to a defendant’s fitness has arisen is generally a matter within the

discretion of the trial court.” Sandham, 174 Ill. 2d at 382.

¶ 16 The record shows that defendant’s fitness to stand trial was first raised on June 13, 2016,

when defense counsel mentioned the possibility of requesting a BCX because of defendant’s

“mental health issues.” On October 12, 2016, defense counsel relayed to the court that defendant

had a history of “diagnosis bipolar.” Defense counsel made a formal BCX request on December

20, 2016, which the court granted. After receiving Dr. Echevarria’s BCX letter, which deemed

defendant fit to stand trial, the court asked whether any additional hearing would be necessary if a

bona fide doubt did not exist. The parties agreed that an additional hearing would not be needed,

and at a later status hearing, stipulated to Dr. Echevarria’s findings. Neither party nor the court

raised the issue of defendant’s fitness again until this appeal.

¶ 17 We find that the trial court did not err by not holding a fitness hearing after receiving the

BCX report. The court made no finding of a bona fide doubt of defendant’s fitness before granting

defense counsel’s motion for a BCX, and the act of ordering the examination was not proof per se

-6- No. 1-17-3020

that a bona fide doubt existed. See Hanson, 212 Ill. 2d at 222; see also People v. Qurash, 2017 IL

App (1st) 143412, ¶ 43. After receiving the BCX report in which Dr. Echevarria found defendant

fit to stand trial, the court asked defense counsel if a hearing was necessary “[i]f there’s not a bona

fide doubt” as to defendant’s fitness. The court was therefore operating under the belief that there

was no bona fide doubt as to defendant’s fitness, a proposition to which both parties agreed. This

was a reasonable stance, even in light of defendant’s medical history of “diagnosis bipolar,”

because it is well-established that mental health issues are not sufficient on their own to

demonstrate lack of fitness. See Eddmonds, 143 Ill. 2d at 519. Thus, there was no bona fide doubt

regarding defendant’s fitness at any point, and no fitness hearing was necessary. See Hanson, 212

Ill. 2d at 217-18.

¶ 18 Defendant cites to People v. Cook, 2014 IL App (2d) 130545, and People v. Contorno, 322

Ill. App. 3d 177 (2001), for the proposition that the court cannot rely solely on the stipulated

findings of experts to determine a defendant’s fitness. This argument is misplaced, however,

because in both cases the trial court found a bona fide doubt existed regarding the defendants’

fitness, but then failed to conduct an independent inquiry. See Cook, 2014 IL App (2d) 130545,

¶¶ 3, 19-20; Contorno, 322 Ill. App. 3d at 178-79. Here, the court never found that a bona fide

doubt existed.

¶ 19 Defendant makes two new arguments in his reply brief: (1) the BCX was ordered under

section 104-11(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 104-11(a) (West 2014)),

which requires the court to hold a fitness hearing once a bona fide doubt is raised; and (2) the

record demonstrates that a bona fide doubt existed, and the court never expressly stated otherwise.

-7- No. 1-17-3020

These arguments are deemed waived because they were presented for the first time in a reply brief.

Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. May 25, 2018).

¶ 20 Even if these arguments were appropriately presented, however, our ruling would remain

the same. First, the section under which the court ordered the BCX is inconsequential. As our

supreme court explained in Hanson, “In either instance, [proceeding under section 104-11(a) or

11(b) of the Code] *** if after the examination the trial court finds no bona fide doubt, no further

hearings on the issue of fitness would be necessary.” (Internal citations omitted.) Hanson, 212 Ill.

2d at 217. Here, notwithstanding that Dr. Echevarria’s letter stated the “purpose” of his

examination was “assessing [defendant’s] fitness to stand trial,” the court found that no bona fide

doubt existed. Therefore, no further inquiry was required.

¶ 21 Second, defendant does not demonstrate that the court abused its discretion by not finding

a bona fide doubt as to his fitness. The trial court has a duty to order a fitness hearing if at any

point a bona fide doubt as to a defendant’s fitness exists. Sandham, 174 Ill. 2d at 382. Factors for

a trial court to consider include “a defendant’s irrational behavior, demeanor at trial, any prior

medical opinion on the defendant’s competence, and any representations by defense counsel on

the defendant’s competence.” People v. Brown, 236 Ill. 2d 175, 186-87 (2010).

¶ 22 Here, defendant points to no specific behavior or issue with his demeanor that should have

concerned the trial court. Additionally, the record contains no prior medical opinion expressing

concerns about defendant’s fitness to stand trial. Finally, defense counsel accepted Dr.

Echevarria’s finding, agreed no bona fide doubt existed, relayed to the court that a subsequent

psychological evaluation from the prison found nothing concerning, and did not question

defendant’s fitness again during the proceedings. Defendant cites his rejection of a plea offer, but

-8- No. 1-17-3020

provides no authority holding that a defendant’s exercise of his right to trial can indicate a lack of

fitness. He also highlights his medical history of a vehicle accident and the fact that he sought

mental health treatment in jail, but points to no behavior, remarks from counsel, or physician

reports that suggest the court abused its discretion by not finding that these issues created a bona

fide doubt as to his fitness. It is defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the trial court abused its

discretion, and he fails to make this showing. See Sandham, 174 Ill. 2d at 381-82. Absent error,

defendant’s request for plain error review is meritless and his default of this issue will be honored.

¶ 23 Defendant’s final argument is that the trial court erroneously refused to grant him credit

for the time he spent incarcerated in Puerto Rico after waiving extradition to Illinois, and failed to

credit him with the four days between his original sentencing date and the court’s issuance of a

corrected mittimus.

¶ 24 On February 26, 2019, while this appeal was pending, our supreme court adopted new

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 472, which sets forth the procedure in criminal cases for correcting

sentencing errors in, as relevant here, “calculation of presentence custody credit.” Ill. S. Ct. R.

472(a)(3) (eff. Mar. 1, 2019). On May 17, 2019, Rule 472 was amended to provide that “[i]n all

criminal cases pending on appeal as of March 1, 2019, or appeals filed thereafter in which a party

has attempted to raise sentencing errors covered by this rule for the first time on appeal, the

reviewing court shall remand to the circuit court to allow the party to file a motion pursuant to this

rule.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 472(e) (eff. May 17, 2019). “No appeal may be taken” on the ground of any of

the sentencing errors enumerated in the rule unless that alleged error “has first been raised in the

circuit court.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 472(c) (eff. May 17, 2019). Therefore, pursuant to Rule 472, we

-9- No. 1-17-3020

“remand to the circuit court to allow [defendant] to file a motion pursuant to this rule,” raising the

alleged errors regarding presentence custody credit. Ill. S. Ct. R. 472(e) (eff. May 17, 2019).

¶ 25 Affirmed; remanded as to presentence custody credit.

- 10 -