People v. Atchison

1

2023 IL App (4th) 210508-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THOMAS J. ATCHISON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-21-0508

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

April 27, 2023

This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of De Witt County No. 20CF66 Honorable Karle E. Koritz, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE LANNERD delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Harris and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

LANNERD JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court granted the Office of the State Appellate Defender's motion to withdraw as counsel and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

¶ 2 In March 2021, defendant, Thomas Atchison, was convicted of aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer (aggravated fleeing) (625 ILCS 5/11-204.1(a)(1) (West 2020)) and speeding more than 35 miles per hour over the speed limit (speeding) (625 ILCS 5/11-601.5(b) (West 2020)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 4 years' imprisonment on the aggravated fleeing conviction, to run concurrently with a sentence of 364 days in jail on the speeding conviction. Defendant timely appealed and the Office of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD) was appointed to represent him. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), OSAD moves to withdraw its representation of defendant, contending "any request for review in this case would be without merit." We agree and grant OSAD's motion to withdraw and affirm the court's judgment.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Defendant was arrested and charged in De Witt County with unlawful possession of a converted vehicle (625 ILCS 5/4-103(a)(1) (West 2020)); aggravated fleeing (625 ILCS 5/11-204.1(a)(1) (West 2020)); speeding (625 ILCS 5/11-601.5(b) (West 2020)); and driving while license revoked (625 ILCS 5/6-303(a) (West 2020)). Following a bench trial defendant was convicted of aggravated fleeing and speeding but acquitted of unlawful possession of a converted vehicle and driving while license revoked. As defendant was acquitted on those two charges, we include only those facts necessary to address the issues raised in OSAD's brief.

¶ 5 A. Pretrial

¶ 6 In October 2020, defendant informed the trial court he intended to waive his right to a jury trial. Before accepting his waiver, the court confirmed with defendant that he had sufficient time to discuss this decision with his attorney. Subsequently, the court described a jury trial and the probable permanence of any jury waiver. It also informed defendant that after waiving his right to a jury trial, he would still be entitled to a bench trial before a judge. Defendant acknowledged his understanding of the court's explanations and stated, "I just feel *** that a jury plays off of emotion. *** I feel I would have a better chance with a bench trial." Defendant denied any force, threat or promise was made to convince him to waive his right to a jury trial and signed a written jury waiver. The court found defendant's waiver was "expressly and understandingly made."

¶ 7 Defendant's attorney, Jennifer Patton, requested a sanity evaluation in December 2020. When requesting the evaluation, Patton stated her request was unrelated to defendant's current fitness to stand trial and solely to determine whether to present the affirmative defense of insanity at defendant's bench trial. The trial court granted her request and appointed Dr. Lawrence Jeckel to evaluate defendant. Dr. Jeckel evaluated defendant in late December, but Patton did not receive his report until February 2021. Based on the report, Patton informed the court she would not be pursuing the affirmative defense of insanity.

¶ 8 In early January 2021, defendant filed a lengthy pro se document in which he recounted "conversations he had with Jesus and [how] he and Jesus wrote a book defining what justice is and what it means." (This document was filed in De Witt County case No. 20-CF-89 and is not included in the record on appeal.) Based on this filing, Timothy Holl, defendant's attorney in case No. 20-CF-89, requested a fitness evaluation and opined defendant did not "actually understand[ ] the nature of the proceedings" and could not assist him in preparing for trial. However, Holl acknowledged defendant knew he was charged with crimes, had a right to a trial, and understood plea negotiations. Patton and the State joined in Holl's request for a fitness evaluation. However, defendant objected and adamantly stated he was "very fit to stand trial." Defendant asserted that he has represented himself in "family law cases" and knows "how to stand trial." Before ruling on Holl's request, the trial court inquired whether Dr. Jeckel's report included any opinion about defendant's current fitness to stand trial. Patton informed the court that the report discussed defendant's "preoccupation with Satan and his spirituality" but considered this to be "overvalued beliefs" rather than delusions. Further, the report "[did] not really say whether [this preoccupation] has affected his ability to *** assist in his defense." Dr. Jeckel's report was not provided to the court or admitted into the record.

¶ 9 The trial court indicated, when determining whether a bona fide doubt exists as to a defendant's fitness to stand trial, it must consider the following factors: "Defendant's irrational behavior and demeanor in court or at trial, any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial and representations of Defendant's counsel concerning the competence of his client, though not conclusive." In addition, the court relied upon two cases regarding fitness to stand trial: People v. Wilson, 124 Ill.App.3d 831, 464 N.E.2d 1158 (1984), and People v. Tolefree, 2011 IL App (1st) 100689, 960 N.E.2d 27. The court summarized Wilson when it said," 'evidence of mental disturbances *** do not in themselves raise a bona fide doubt in Defendant's current fitness.'" Wilson, 124 Ill.App.3d at 837. Further, the court, quoting Tolefree, 2011 IL App (1st) 100689, ¶ 55, stated, "A Defendant is unfit if he is unable to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense." (Internal quotation marks omitted.). Then, the court opined, "Even if *** Defendant believes that he has observed Satan walking on the earth, I think a knee jerk reaction is to interpret that as some kind of mental illness or mental disturbance." Additionally, the court stated it had ample opportunities to observe defendant in court proceedings over the past four years and, based on those observations, defendant understood the charges against him and the possible penalties, and he could assist in his own defense. Accordingly, the court held there was nothing to indicate there was a bona fide doubt as to defendant's fitness to stand trial and denied Holl's request.

¶ 10 B. Bench Trial

¶ 11 At defendant's bench trial in March 2021, defendant informed the trial court he would be raising the affirmative defense of compulsion (720 ILCS 5/7-11(a) (West 2020)). The State presented testimony from four witnesses: Sara Zook Officer James McClure, Sergeant Bryan Morgan, and Officer Chad Hickey.

¶ 12 1. Sara Zook's Testimony

¶ 13 Sara Zook, defendant's ex-wife, picked up defendant from a motel around 10:30 a.m. on August 27, 2020. After picking him up, Zook informed defendant he had a warrant for his arrest. She and defendant then ran some errands before driving to her workplace. Zook went into work and defendant left in Zook's vehicle. Around 4 p.m., Zook walked to the police station and reported her vehicle stolen.

¶ 14 2. Officer James McClure's Testimony

¶ 15 Officer James McClure, of the Clinton Police Department, met with Zook at the police station and created a report about her stolen vehicle. McClure entered the vehicle's information into the Law Enforcement Agencies Data System.

¶ 16 3. Sergeant Bryan Morgan's Testimony

¶ 17 At the beginning of his shift on August 27, 2020, Sergeant Bryan Morgan, of the De Witt County Sheriff's Office, was informed of the make, model, and license plate number for the stolen vehicle. While on patrol, Morgan and Sergeant McClain were stationed in the median of Route 51, and Morgan observed the stolen vehicle pass them. Morgan and McClain immediately pulled onto the highway behind the vehicle and activated their emergency lights and sirens. The sergeants continued their pursuit because the driver failed to slow down or pull over. During the pursuit, Morgan used his same-direction radar to determine the driver's speed. The sergeants' pursuit of the vehicle lasted approximately seven minutes, during which the driver reached speeds of 125 miles per hour in areas where the posted speed limit varied between 45 to 65 miles per hour. During the trial, footage from Morgan's in-car camera depicting the pursuit was admitted as People's exhibit No. 1. The sergeants terminated their pursuit at the Macon County line where an officer from the Maroa Police Department continued the pursuit. Shortly after Morgan terminated pursuit, he was dispatched to Macon County because the driver was in custody.

¶ 18 When Morgan arrived on the scene, Macon County deputies were escorting the driver out of a bean field. Morgan immediately identified the driver as defendant, who told Morgan he ran because "he's just tired of goin' to jail." Macon County deputies transferred custody of defendant to McClain, and he transported defendant to the De Witt County jail.

¶ 19 Morgan acknowledged he was dispatched to Zook's home twice the week prior to the pursuit. The first call was about an intruder entering the house and the second was Zook requesting defendant's...