formal fitness hearing (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

formal fitness hearing in Illinois

8 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2012 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Wesley Griffin v. A.L. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correctiongreen
ca8 · 1991 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995E.g., Pate v. *859 Robinson (1966), 383 U.S. 375, 386 , 86 S.Ct. 836, 842 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815, 822 ; Griffin v. Lockhart (8th Cir.1991), 935 F.2d 926, 931 (holding that if there is "sufficient doubt" about the competency of an accused, later conduct of the accused "`cannot be relied upon to dispense with a hearing'").

11
People v. Gevasgreen
ill · 1995 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
2 sentences

1995We observed that, although the record did not establish that defendant was taking the medications on the exact dates he pleaded guilty and was sentenced, the last date on which defendant was shown to have been taking the drugs was "proximate enough to the dates defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to have imposed a duty on the trial court to further investigate defendant’s fitness for trial.” (Gevas, 166 Ill. 2d at 469 .) We also noted that the trial court was mistaken in its belief that a fitness hearing had been held, as a fitness evaluation by a doctor is not the same as a formal fitn

1995We observed that, although the record did not establish that defendant was taking the medications on the exact dates he pleaded guilty and was sentenced, the last date on which defendant was shown to have been taking the drugs was "proximate enough to the dates defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to have imposed a duty on the trial court to further investigate defendant's fitness for trial." ( Gevas, 166 Ill.2d at 469 , 211 Ill.Dec. 511 , 655 N.E.2d 894 .) We also noted that the trial court was mistaken in its belief that a fitness hearing had been held, as a fitness evaluation by a doc

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Kinkead green
ill · 1995
2 sentences

1997As our supreme court stated in Kinkead , "[f]urther inquiry into the specifics of defendant's drug usage at the time of his sentencing would have provided the trial court with facts relevant to whether the court had a further duty, under section 104-21(a), to conduct a formal fitness hearing." Kinkead, 168 Ill.2d at 415 , 214 Ill.Dec. 145 , 660 N.E.2d 852 .

1997As our supreme court stated in Kinkead, "[flurther inquiry into the specifics of defendant’s drug usage at the time of his sentencing would have provided the trial court with facts relevant to whether the court had a further duty, under section 104 — 21(a), to conduct a formal fitness hearing.” Kinkead, 168 Ill. 2d at 415 .

41996–1997
Pate v. Robinson green
scotus · 1966
2 sentences

1994According to the State, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny a hearing once the guilt phase of the trial ended because the court was able to observe the actual course of Brandon’s conduct at trial and "[ljittle, if any, more information could be gained by a formal fitness hearing.” A similar argument was rejected by the United States Supreme Court in Pate v. Robinson (1966), 383 U.S. 375, 386 , 15 L.

1994According to the State, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny a hearing once the guilt phase of the trial ended because the court was able to observe the actual course of Brandon’s conduct at trial and "[ljittle, if any, more information could be gained by a formal fitness hearing.” A similar argument was rejected by the United States Supreme Court in Pate v. Robinson (1966), 383 U.S. 375, 386 , 15 L.

21994–1995
People v. Lang green
ill · 1986
1 sentence

2012The Lang court explained that “the guarantee of fundamental fairness inherent in the due process clause requires periodic review of respondent’s fitness status, so as to determine if he is fit to stand trial, thereby ensuring that respondent’s speedy trial rights are not violated.” Id. ¶ 22 A key difference between this case and Lang, however, is that the defendant in Lang–through his attorneys–specifically requested a formal fitness hearing; in this case, defendant’s attorney made no such request.

12012–2012
People v. Brandon green
ill · 1994
2 sentences

1995In Brandon we considered the legislative mandate embodied in section 104-21(a) and rejected the argument that the trial court's personal observation of the defendant's deportment in court was an adequate substitute for a formal fitness hearing, particularly when psychotropic drugs are involved. ( Brandon, 162 Ill.2d at 459-60 , 205 Ill.Dec. 421 , 643 N.E.2d 712 .) Federal cases similarly have rejected the argument that a court may decline to hold a fitness hearing if the defendant appeared rational and competent before and during trial.

1995In Brandon we considered the legislative mandate embodied in section 104-21(a) and rejected the argument that the trial court's personal observation of the defendant's deportment in court was an adequate substitute for a formal fitness hearing, particularly when psychotropic drugs are involved. ( Brandon, 162 Ill.2d at 459-60 , 205 Ill.Dec. 421 , 643 N.E.2d 712 .) Federal cases similarly have rejected the argument that a court may decline to hold a fitness hearing if the defendant appeared rational and competent before and during trial.

11995–1995
People v. Lang green
illappct · 1984
1 sentence

1986However, it decided to “defer” consideration of the challenged hearings on involuntary admission in light of its resolution of the fitness issue. ( 127 Ill.

11986–1986

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IL § 725 ILCS 5/104-10 (4) IL § 725 ILCS 5/104-21 (4) IL § 725 ILCS 5/104-11 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check