People v. Roby

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Zelenak

    2014 Ill. App. 3d 120639 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    The provision by the supreme court for the appointment of counsel at the posttrial motion stage is indicative of the court's “continuing concern for the constitutional rights of defendants, even after they have lost the presumption of innocence.” People v. Roby, 356 Ill.App.3d 567, 572, 292 Ill.Dec. 823, 826 N.E.2d 1259 (2005). If there is a bona fide question as to defendant's fitness, defendant cannot be presumed to have understood the Rule 605(c) admonishments.

  2. People v. Itani

    383 Ill. App. 3d 954 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 6 times
    Concluding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in precluding an expert from testifying that the defendant's brain injury made him susceptible to police suggestibility where the matter "was not beyond the understanding of ordinary citizens" and where the jury had been presented with evidence about the defendant's brain injury and brain functioning and was able to draw its own conclusions on the impact those matters had on the defendant's confession

    On August 5, 2005, the circuit court conducted a hearing on defendant's supplemental motion to withdraw his guilty plea. As a preliminary matter, the court first considered whether defendant was fit to proceed on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, pursuant to this court's holding in People v. Roby, 356 Ill. App. 3d 567 (2005). The parties stipulated that, if called to testify, Dr. Susan Nowak would testify that she evaluated defendant on July 14, 2005, to determine whether he was fit to proceed on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.