Defendant, Found Not-Guilty by Reason of Insanity, Appeals Denial of Transfer to a Less-Secure Psychiatric Facility

People v. Haynes addressed a defendant’s statutory rights to participate in a conditional-release hearing and obtain an impartial psychiatric examination.

In People v. Haynes, 2024 IL App (5th) 210361-U, the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court considered whether a defendant who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity was denied important statutory rights during a hearing concerning his continued confinement and possible conditional release.

The defendant, Agganis Haynes, was charged with attempted first-degree murder in April 2002. Several months later, the trial court ordered a fitness evaluation, and a psychiatrist determined that Haynes was unfit to stand trial. He was later found fit to stand trial, but the court ultimately found him not guilty by reason of insanity and remanded him to the Illinois Department of Human Services.

Nearly two decades later, Haynes petitioned for transfer to a nonsecure setting, conditional release, or discharge. He also sought an impartial psychiatric or psychological examination. The trial court denied the petition after a hearing at which Haynes was not present and did not order the independent evaluation he had requested.

Quick Answer

The Fifth District vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case for a new hearing. The appellate court concluded that Haynes had a statutory right to be present at the hearing on his petition and that the trial court was required to address his request for an impartial examination by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist outside the Department of Human Services.

The appellate decision was issued as a Supreme Court Rule 23 order, meaning it is generally not precedent except in the limited circumstances permitted by the rule.

Background of the Case

Haynes was charged with attempted first-degree murder on April 29, 2002. On July 26, 2002, the trial court ordered that he undergo an evaluation to determine whether he was fit to stand trial. On August 7, 2002, he was found unfit to stand trial.

On May 28, 2003, Haynes was subsequently found fit to stand trial. However, based on the evidence before the court, he was found not guilty of attempted murder by reason of insanity and was remanded to the Illinois Department of Human Services.

Illinois law provides a specific statutory process for individuals who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity. Under 730 ILCS 5/5-2-4, a defendant may later petition for treatment plan review, conditional release, or discharge. The statute establishes procedures for those hearings and identifies the standards the court must apply.

On September 9, 2021, Haynes filed a petition seeking transfer to a nonsecure setting, conditional release, or discharge. He also requested an impartial psychiatric or psychological examination.

The Trial Court Denied the Petition

On October 27, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on Haynes’s petition. The record established that Haynes was not physically present for the hearing. The court considered a report prepared by the Department of Human Services and determined that Haynes was still in need of inpatient treatment.

The court denied the request for transfer to a nonsecure setting. The written order indicated that Haynes was represented by counsel and that the parties stipulated to the Department of Human Services report.

Haynes appealed, arguing that the proceeding violated statutory protections governing his presence at the hearing and his request for an impartial examination.

Three Issues Raised on Appeal

Right to Be Present

Whether Haynes was entitled to attend the hearing on his petition.

Independent Examination

Whether the trial court properly addressed his request for an impartial evaluation.

Ineffective Assistance

Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to prevent the alleged violations.

The State Argued That Haynes Waived His Rights

The State argued that Haynes should be barred from raising the alleged statutory violations under the doctrine of invited error or acquiescence. The State contended that his attorney had effectively waived his rights to be present and to receive an independent evaluation.

The appellate court disagreed. The Fifth District explained that the record did not establish that Haynes had knowingly waived his right to be present. The fact that defense counsel had drafted the order denying the petition was not enough, by itself, to establish a valid waiver of the defendant’s statutory rights.

Because the record did not demonstrate a valid waiver, the appellate court proceeded to consider whether the statutory requirements had been followed.

Haynes Had a Statutory Right to Be Present

Under 730 ILCS 5/5-2-4(e), a defendant who has been committed following a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity may file a petition for treatment plan review, discharge, or conditional release. The statute requires the court to set a hearing after receiving the petition.

The appellate court also relied on the Illinois Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code. Under 405 ILCS 5/3-806, a respondent generally has the right to be present at a hearing under the Mental Health Code unless specific statutory circumstances justify proceeding without the respondent.

In Haynes’s case, the appellate court found that neither recognized exception was established by the record. There was no clear showing that Haynes’s attendance would have subjected him to a substantial risk of serious physical or emotional harm, and his attorney had not informed the court that Haynes refused to attend.

COVID-19 Did Not Automatically Eliminate the Right to Appear

The State argued that the hearing took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. The appellate court rejected the idea that the pandemic itself eliminated Haynes’s statutory right to participate. The court specifically noted that alternatives such as appearing remotely could have been used.

The Court Also Found a Problem With the Independent Evaluation

Haynes’s petition also requested an impartial psychiatric or psychological examination. Under 730 ILCS 5/5-2-4(f), an impartial examination by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist who is not employed by the Department of Human Services must be ordered when requested by the State or defense, or when the court determines that such an examination is appropriate.

The appellate court concluded that the trial court failed to rule on Haynes’s request for an independent examination. Because no impartial examination was ordered, the appellate court found that his statutory right had not been honored.

The court therefore did not need to resolve Haynes’s third argument concerning ineffective assistance of counsel. The first two issues were sufficient to require the trial court’s order to be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Appellate Result

Vacated

Trial Court Order

Remanded

New Hearing Required

Insanity Defense and Fitness to Stand Trial Are Different Issues

The terms “fitness to stand trial” and “not guilty by reason of insanity” describe different legal questions in Illinois criminal cases.

Fitness to stand trial concerns whether a defendant is mentally fit to participate in the criminal proceedings. A defendant generally must understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings and be able to assist counsel in presenting a defense. Illinois law provides procedures for evaluating and restoring a defendant who is found unfit.

An insanity defense, by contrast, concerns the defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense. A person found not guilty by reason of insanity is acquitted on that basis, but the acquittal does not necessarily result in immediate release. Under 730 ILCS 5/5-2-4, the court and the Department of Human Services follow a statutory process to determine whether the person needs inpatient or outpatient mental health services, conditional release, or discharge.

Illinois law defines conditional release as release from the custody of the Department of Human Services or the court under conditions designed to support treatment and protect the defendant, the victim, the victim’s family, and others.

Fitness vs. Insanity

Fitness to Stand Trial

Focuses on whether the defendant can understand the proceedings and assist the defense while the criminal case is pending.

Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity

Focuses on the defendant’s mental state in connection with the conduct charged and can result in a separate statutory process following acquittal.

What People v. Haynes Means for Illinois Criminal Cases

People v. Haynes, 2024 IL App (5th) 210361-U illustrates that the rights of a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity do not end after the original criminal case is resolved. Illinois provides a statutory procedure for seeking treatment-plan review, conditional release, or discharge, and courts must follow the procedures governing those proceedings.

The case also demonstrates why the record surrounding a waiver can be important. The appellate court refused to presume that Haynes had waived his statutory rights simply because defense counsel had drafted the order denying his petition. The court required evidence establishing a valid waiver.

Because the first two appellate claims were dispositive, the Fifth District did not decide whether defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective. Instead, the court vacated the order denying the petition and remanded the case for a hearing consistent with its opinion.

Talk to a Champaign, IL Criminal Defense Attorney Today

The Champaign criminal defense lawyers at Patel Law, P.C. represent Illinois residents who have been charged with serious crimes and individuals dealing with complex criminal proceedings. Call our office at 217-384-1111 to schedule a consultation and discuss your legal options.