Background
Mohamad Aldemur was convicted after a jury trial of strangulation, domestic violence, and child-endangering offenses involving his wife and daughter. The evidence included testimony that he assaulted and strangled his wife during separate December 2023 incidents, threatened her in June 2024, and assaulted his daughter during the December and June episodes.
Before trial, Aldemur repeatedly sought to represent himself and cycled through several attorneys. The trial court ordered psychiatric-clinic evaluations after questioning his capacity to waive counsel, but no competency hearing was held. At sentencing, the court imposed an aggregate 47-month prison term and ordered Aldemur to pay half of court costs, although the written entry also entered judgment for the costs of prosecution.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District affirmed Aldemur’s convictions. Although the trial court erred by not holding a competency-to-stand-trial hearing after the issue was raised, the error was harmless because the record showed indicia of competence and no indicia of incompetence. The court also held that Aldemur did not knowingly and intelligently waive counsel, upheld the admission of the daughter’s testimony and the challenged demonstrative evidence, and rejected his Brady, sufficiency, and manifest-weight challenges.
The court vacated the sentences on Counts 6, 7, 9, and 10. The domestic-violence and child-endangering counts involving the daughter for each respective incident were allied offenses that should have merged. It remanded for the State to elect between Counts 6 and 7, and between Counts 9 and 10, followed by resentencing. The court also remanded to correct the sentencing entry so it conforms to the oral order requiring payment of only half of court costs.
Key Takeaways
- Failure to hold a required competency hearing is harmless absent sufficient indicia of incompetence in the record.
- A defendant’s request to proceed pro se fails when the record does not show a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel.
- Domestic violence and child endangering based on the same conduct toward the child must merge when they involve the same harm and animus.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the mandatory duty to hold a competency hearing once competency to stand trial is raised from the separate inquiry into whether a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived counsel. It also reinforces that sentencing entries must match the trial court’s oral pronouncement.