People v. Schmidt

1

2024 IL App (2d) 230478-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TAMARA C. SCHMIDT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2-23-0478

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Second District

November 21, 2024

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

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane County. No. 22-CF-514 Honorable Elizabeth K. Flood, Judge, Presiding.

JUSTICE BIRKETT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hutchinson and Mullen concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

BIRKETT, JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: Defense counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present an insanity defense at defendant's discharge hearing, because defendant's conduct during and shortly after the offenses, combined with her schizophrenia diagnosis by the fitness evaluator suggested that she was incapable of appreciating the criminality of her conduct when she committed the offenses.

¶ 2 Defendant, Tamara C. Schmidt, appeals from a judgment following a discharge hearing, finding her "not not guilty" of several offenses. She contends that (1) her counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present an insanity defense at the discharge hearing and (2) the State failed to prove that the value of stolen property exceeded $500 as charged. Because we conclude that defense counsel was ineffective for not investigating and raising an insanity defense at the discharge hearing, we reverse and remand.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The State indicted defendant on one count of burglary based on her knowingly and without authority entering a house that was for sale with the intent to commit a theft therein (720 ILCS 5/19-1(a) (West 2020)), one count of felony theft based on her knowingly obtaining control over personal property (value exceeding $500 but not $10,000) from inside the house with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the use or benefit of the property (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(1)(A), (b)(4) (West 2020)), and one count of criminal trespass to real property based on her knowingly and without lawful authority entering the house (720 ILCS 5/21-3(a)(1) (West 2020)).

¶ 5 On April 14, 2022, defense counsel entered his appearance. On April 20, 2022, defense counsel requested, and the trial court ordered, defendant's fitness evaluation. On June 29, 2022, the fitness evaluator released her fitness evaluation report. The evaluator stated that she initially met with defendant over Zoom on June 14, 2022. When the evaluator informed defendant that the trial court had ordered her to complete a psychological evaluation regarding her fitness to stand trial, defendant stated that she" '[did not] have a court case'" and that" '[t]his [was] double jeopardy.'" Defendant said that she had been" 'put in here by XO cops. They are not cops. They have strips. I'm being held against my will.'" Defendant denied that she was currently receiving mental health treatment or had any prescriptions for psychotropic medication. She was argumentative with the evaluator, saying she would be released that day and reiterating that she" '[did not] have a court case.'" She insisted that she did not need mental health treatment and that she was" 'not crazy.'" After defendant became agitated, began repeating herself, and threw the laptop through the chuckhole of her cell, the evaluation was terminated.

¶ 6 On June 22, 2022, the evaluator met with defendant in person at the Kane County Adult Justice Center. The evaluator spoke with defendant from the front of the cell because she refused to come out. According to the evaluator, defendant had disheveled hair and wore a blanket around her shoulders. After the evaluator explained the purpose for the meeting defendant stated," 'I don't have a case. Please leave me alone. Just go away.'" Defendant became agitated and uncooperative and refused to engage in the evaluation. She began to yell that she had no court papers or a court case. Given defendant's behavior, the evaluator terminated the interview and left.

¶ 7 The report further stated that records from the jail indicated that defendant presented as paranoid and uncooperative and that she ate very little food because she believed that someone was poisoning her and that there were bugs in the food.

¶ 8 The evaluator diagnosed defendant with "Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorder." The evaluator opined to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty that defendant did not currently meet the legal criteria for fitness to stand trial. The evaluator elaborated that defendant displayed "delusional thought processes, [was] not grounded in reality, and [was] disorganized in her thinking." Defendant was "not aware of her role as the defendant" in the process and was "not taking care of her basic needs." "Furthermore, her thoughts [were] illogical, she [was] guarded, and [she] [was] unable to actively engage in treatment or make sound decisions." These symptoms, the evaluator opined, interfered with defendant's functioning and required her to have psychiatric treatment for stabilization. The evaluator recommended that defendant receive inpatient treatment if she were found unfit to stand trial. The evaluator based the treatment recommendation on defendant's "symptom presentation, her limited insight into her current mental health needs, and her need for psychiatric interventions." The evaluator also opined to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty that defendant could be restored to fitness within one year.

¶ 9 At a fitness hearing on July 6, 2022, the trial court found defendant unfit to stand trial and committed her to the custody of the Department of Human Services (DHS) for inpatient treatment. At that point, defendant, who was present via Zoom, stated, "I have no case. I have no case. Okay? I have no case. So that's it. The case has been dropped." The court commented that defendant's statements were "not appropriate to what [was] occurring." The court continued the matter "for status of fitness and receipt of a treatment plan."

¶ 10 DHS placed defendant at Ingalls Hospital for inpatient restoration treatment. As part of the restoration process, defendant was evaluated approximately every 90 days for one year.

¶ 11 The first progress report, dated November 1, 2022, stated as follows in the section titled "Condition on Admission." Defendant was guarded and difficult to engage in conversation. She said that she had no psychiatric illnesses and would be leaving that day. She refused to answer any questions about her psychiatric symptoms. She said that she was there on" 'bogus charges,'" the charges had been dropped, and she could not discuss the reason for her admission because there was no pending criminal case. Defendant further stated that her fiance, Thomas Bitner, owned the house in question and was currently in Ingalls Hospital" 'on the men's side.'" Defendant made incoherent statements about the Kane County Jail. The evaluator could not obtain further history from defendant because of the "extremely disorganized nature of her thought pattern and behavior." After the evaluator mentioned the subject of medication, defendant abruptly walked out of the interview and refused to engage further.

¶ 12 The evaluator noted that defendant was unable to reconstruct the events preceding her arrest and responded nonsensically to questions regarding her legal situation or the reason for her admission to the hospital. Defendant could not engage in meaningful conversation, did not understand the nature of the charges, and could not answer questions about the legal proceedings. The evaluator opined that defendant's thinking was so impaired that she was incapable of assuming a meaningful presence in a courtroom or working intelligently and collaboratively with her attorney.

¶ 13 The evaluator's diagnosis was "psychotic disorder unspecified." The evaluator opined that defendant remained unfit to stand trial but could be restored to fitness within one year with appropriate treatment, including psychotropic medication to alleviate her mood instability, psychotic symptoms, and disorganization. The evaluator noted that a petition for involuntary medication had been filed.

¶ 14 The next progress report was dated January 23, 2023. The evaluator noted that, since the last report, the involuntary-medication petition had been granted and defendant was taking a daily dose of Zyprexa. She showed some improvement, started to attend "select groups," occasionally spoke to her team, and had less frequent and intense auditory hallucinations. However, she could still not engage in meaningful restoration treatment or discussions of her legal situation or the proceedings. Although "[h]er psychosis [was] showing some improvement," she was not yet able to attend restoration groups or rationally discuss her charges with her team. The evaluator diagnosed defendant with schizophrenia. In the evaluator's opinion, defendant remained unfit to stand trial but, with continued treatment, could be restored to fitness within one year.

¶ 15 The April 4, 2023, progress report stated that, after taking Zyprexa for some time, defendant's "progress plateaued." Defendant was subsequently prescribed Haloperidol and her Zyprexa was tapered to a lower dose. After the switch to Haloperidol, defendant showed "slow further improvement." She was becoming more social and conversational. She also began attending restoration groups and individual meetings with her therapist. She "[was] no longer noted to respond to internal stimuli," but she continued to struggle with delusional content and had little insight into her situation or charges. She appeared capable of learning legal terms,...