Considering that contemporaneously with the substance of defendant's motion, we find that defendant merely requested an expert evaluation. ¶ 72 Finally, this situation is a far cry from that of People v. Smith , 353 Ill.App.3d 236, 288 Ill.Dec. 731, 818 N.E.2d 419 (2004), where the court raised sua sponte a bona fide doubt of defendant's fitness to stand trial after defendant's first psychological evaluation and defendant's expression of dissatisfaction with the public defender and repeated requests to represent himself. Id. at 238, 288 Ill.Dec. 731, 818 N.E.2d 419.

Once the trial court concludes that a bona fide doubt exists concerning the defendant's fitness, the defendant becomes constitutionally entitled to a fitness hearing. People v. Smith, 353 Ill. App. 3d 236, 240 (2004). ¶ 32 In determining whether a bona fide doubt of fitness exists, a trial court may consider a number of relevant factors, including "a defendant's irrational behavior, the defendant's demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on the defendant's competence to stand trial." People v. Easley, 192 Ill. 2d 307, 319 (2000).

However, if the court concludes that there is a bona fide doubt of the defendant's fitness, the defendant becomes entitled to a fitness hearing. People v. Smith, 353 Ill. App. 3d 236, 240 (2004).¶ 18 Defendant contends that, at the December 7, 2017, hearing, Judge Bishop found a bona fide doubt of defendant's fitness.

Considering that contemporaneously with the substance of defendant's motion, we find that defendant merely requested an expert evaluation. ¶ 72 Finally, this situation is a far cry from that of People v. Smith, 353 Ill. App. 3d 236 (2004), where the court raised sua sponte a bona fide doubt of defendant's fitness to stand trial after defendant's first psychological evaluation and defendant's expression of dissatisfaction with the public defender and repeated requests to represent himself. Id. at 238.

"[O]nce the trial court concludes that a bona fide doubt exists concerning the defendant's fitness, the defendant becomes constitutionally entitled to a fitness hearing." People v. Smith, 353 Ill. App. 3d 236, 240 (2004). We begin our analysis with a review of section 104-11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/104-11(West 2010)).

Considering that contemporaneously with the substance of defendant's motion, we find that defendant merely requested an expert evaluation.¶ 72 Finally, this situation is a far cry from that of People v. Smith, 353 Ill. App. 3d 236 (2004), where the court raised sua sponte a bona fide doubt of defendant's fitness to stand trial after defendant's first psychological evaluation and defendant's expression of dissatisfaction with the public defender and repeated requests to represent himself. Id. at 238.

We also agree with defendant that the trial court's finding of fitness at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing in the present case was not sufficient to determine defendant's fitness at the time of trial. See People v. Smith, 353 Ill.App.3d 236, 243, 288 Ill.Dec. 731, 818 N.E.2d 419 (2004) (trial court cannot "determine retroactively whether a defendant had been fit prior to trial"). The issue of fitness was first discussed by the trial court after the pronouncement of sentence.