stating that the 7 district court’s application of an enhancement “in determining an [incompetent 8 defendant’s] maximum period of commitment [does not] impermissibly alter[] the 9 nature of his confinement, or introduce[] into the commitment an invalid punitive 10 purpose”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the 7 district court’s application of an enhancement “in determining an [incompetent 8 defendant’s] maximum period of commitment [does not] impermissibly alter[] the 9 nature of his confinement, or introduce[] into the commitment an invalid punitive 10 purpose”
- stating that the district court’s application of an enhancement “in determining an [incompetent defendant’s] maximum period of commitment [does not] impermissibly alter[] the nature of his confinement, or introduce[] into the commitment an invalid punitive purpose”
- noting that the trial court lacks "discretion to select, as a maximum period of commitment, a time other than the longest span provided by statute"
- differences between statutory schemes for defendants found unfit for trial but acquitted in a discharge hearing and defendants found unfit for trial but not acquitted in a discharge hearing were reasonably related to the different purposes each served
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE HEIPLE, specially concurring:
I agree with the majority of the court that the decision in Palmer must be limited to the question before the court in that case. However, for the reasons stated in my dissent in Palmer (148 Ill. 2d at 94-95), I reiterate my position that Palmer was incorrectly decided.