2024 IL App (2d) 230496-U 

No. 2-23-0496 

Order filed February 9, 2024

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent 

except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court

OF ILLINOIS, ) of McHenry County. 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 23-CF-1016 

) 

DOUGLAS R. BONCOSKY, ) Honorable 

) Michael E. Coppedge, 

Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice McLaren and Kennedy concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The circuit court did not err in granting the State’s petition to deny defendant 

pretrial release, based on its finding that no conditions could mitigate his real and 

present risk of willful flight. Affirmed.

¶ 2 In this interlocutory appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h) (eff. Oct. 19, 2023), 

defendant, Douglas R. Boncosky, appeals from the circuit court’s order granting the State’s 

petition to deny defendant pretrial release and ordering him detained pursuant to Public Acts 101-
2024 IL App (2d) 230496-U 

- 2 - 

652 and 102-1104 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as the Pretrial Fairness Act (Act).1

 See 

Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 52 (lifting stay and setting effective date as September 18, 

2023). Defendant argues that the circuit court erred in finding that the State met its burden of 

showing that no conditions could mitigate his real and present risk of willful flight. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On October 30, 2023, the State charged defendant with aggravated identity theft—

elderly—second or subsequent (720 ILCS 5/16-30(b)(1) (West 2022) (Class X)), theft—

unauthorized control knowing to deprive—exceeding $1 million (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(2)(B) (West 

2022) (Class X)), financial exploitation—elderly person (720 ILCS 5/17-56(a) (West 2022) (Class 

1)), and forgery—makes or alters document (720 ILCS 5/17-3(a)(1) (West 2022) (Class 3)). It 

alleged that, between August 2019 and August 2023, defendant stole $1.9 million from his 

memory-impaired aunt, Carroll Merritt, over whom he had a power of attorney, using unauthorized 

checks and wire transfers to himself and his business, Americas Best Bath Company.

¶ 5 A probable cause statement filed on October 30, 2023, alleged that, once an investigation 

by Bank of America commenced, defendant attempted suicide and was currently undergoing 

outpatient therapy to address his mental health. Defendant had recently sold all of his business’s 

assets, as well as his Illinois residence, to move to Florida in November 2023. It further alleged 

that defendant had expressed interest in changing his name and had already changed his phone 

number to a Florida number. A probation-and-court-services-department form stated that 

1

The Act has also been referred to as the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today 

(SAFE-T) Act. Neither name is official, as neither appears in the Illinois Compiled Statutes or 

public acts.
2024 IL App (2d) 230496-U 

- 3 - 

defendant was 54 years old, lived with his girlfriend in a rental residence in Barrington for 9 years, 

was unemployed for 3 weeks, and was previously employed by his company (which he had closed 

down after 13 years, with a salary listed as “LOST MONEY”). The document also noted that 

defendant owned a 2024 Volkswagen Atlas vehicle.

¶ 6 At an October 31, 2023, hearing, defendant supplied an affidavit of assets and liabilities, 

asking the court to appoint the public defender. The affidavit stated that defendant owned a

$50,000 vehicle, had $26,000 in accounts subject to withdrawal, and $2000 in cash and other 

personal property. He represented that he owed $50,000 in credit card debt and $500,000 in 

business debt. When questioned by the court, defendant testified that he also had $2500 in a 

business checking account. His company, Americas Best Bath Company, had gross receipts of 

$2.6 or $2.7 million in the past year, but there was no pass-through income to defendant. He 

testified that he had losses “for years.” The court denied his request to appoint the McHenry 

County Public Defender for trial but appointed the office for purposes of the detention hearing.

¶ 7 A. State’s Petition

¶ 8 On October 31, 2023, the State petitioned to deny defendant pretrial release, arguing that 

defendant had been charged with detainable offenses—aggravated identity theft, theft, and 

financial exploitation—that the proof was evident or the presumption great that he committed the 

charged offenses, he had a high likelihood of willful flight, and that no condition or combination 

thereof could mitigate defendant’s real and present risk of willful flight.

¶ 9 At the hearing on the State’s petition, the State argued that defendant should be detained 

based on his flight risk, asserting that it possessed police reports, as well as emails and letters by 

defendant, that reflected the following. An investigation commenced after defendant attempted 

suicide and wrote a letter. The victim is 74 years old, lives in a memory care facility, and is
2024 IL App (2d) 230496-U 

- 4 - 

defendant’s aunt. Defendant had a position of trust with her. Addressing willful flight, the State 

asserted that defendant had taken several steps indicative of flight. Specifically, while the 

investigation was pending, he sold his business, sold his home, made statements that he intended 

to move to Florida in the first week of November, changed his phone number to a Florida number, 

and expressed interest in changing his name.

¶ 10 Defense counsel responded that the suicide attempt occurred on August 22, 2023. Counsel 

argued that, if someone sought to evade prosecution, they would not “let everyone know where 

they are going.” Counsel noted that defendant has lived in Illinois his entire life, has ties to the 

community, his mother lives in Crystal Lake, he has a brother in Hawthorn Woods, and another 

brother in Chicago. Counsel argued that defendant was not a flight risk and that conditions could 

be imposed to minimize any such risk, such as ordering him not to leave Illinois and to surrender 

his passport. Addressing defendant’s plans to move to Florida, counsel argued that they were 

made in advance of knowing that a warrant had been issued.

¶ 11 B. Circuit Court’s Ruling

¶ 12 On October 31, 2023, the circuit court granted the State’s petition, finding that the proof 

was evident or the presumption great that defendant committed the charged offenses. The court 

also found that the State met its burden to show that defendant posed a real and present threat of 

willful flight, noting the amount of money he allegedly stole would provide him the ability to: 

“transition to a different physical environment, namely, an environment potentially out of 

the United States. It is not implausible to conclude that if [defendant] went to Florida, [he 

would] then have access to ports of exit that would allow [him] to leave the United States 

to be in an environment either in Central America, South America, or some other area that 
2024 IL App (2d) 230496-U 

- 5 - 

would not have extradition proceedings allowing [his] return to the State of Illinois. Again, 

these are sizable amounts of assets.”

The court acknowledged that defendant had no history of avoiding court obligations, but the facts 

here, including the possibility of non-probationable Class X felony convictions, presented a 

possibility that he would flee Illinois. As to conditions that could mitigate the risk of willful flight, 

the court rejected electronic home monitoring or GPS options, finding that, given the charges 

against defendant and the amount of allegedly-stolen assets, such options would be insufficient or 

that “it is not improbable to conclude that [defendant] could find a way to defeat those tracking 

mechanisms and flee this jurisdiction.” In its written order, the court noted that defendant had 

allegedly “obtained substantial assets from the alleged events,” had taken affirmative steps to 

change communication information, such as obtaining a Florida phone number, and expressed his 

intent to move to Florida.

¶ 13 Defendant appealed, seeking release with appropriate conditions. In his notice of appeal, 

he checked a box indicating that the court erred in finding that the State met its burden of showing 

that no condition or combination thereof could mitigate his risk of willful flight. Defendant 

elaborated that he has strong and deep ties to the community and that his plans to move to Florida 

pre-dated his arrest. He also asserted that, as of the hearing date, he had no plans to flee the 

jurisdiction; the (unspecified) email presented was taken out of context; he had not taken steps to 

change his name; and he will seek employment under his given name.

¶ 14 On January 9, 2024, the Office of the State Appellate Defender filed a memorandum in 

support of defendant’s appeal, and, on January 30, 2024, the State filed its responsive 

memorandum. 

¶ 15 II. ANALYSIS
2024 IL App (2d) 230496-U 

- 6 - 

¶ 16 Defendant argues that the circuit court erred in finding that the State met its burden of 

showing that no conditions could mitigate his real and present risk of willful flight based on his 

alleged access to $1.9 million, particularly where the State presented no evidence that he still had 

the money he allegedly stole. He also contends that the court erred in merely hypothesizing that 

he might be able to use the money to defeat GPS monitoring. For the following reasons, we reject 

defendant’s arguments.

¶ 17 We review under the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard the circuit court’s factual 

findings regarding whether the State presented clear and convincing evidence that conditions of 

release would mitigate defendant’s risk of willful flight to avoid prosecution. People v. Trottier, 

2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence where it

is unreasonable. Id. We review for an abuse of discretion the circuit court’s ultimate determination 

regarding pretrial release. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs only when the circuit court’s decision 

is unreasonable. Id.

¶ 18 Pretrial release may be denied where a “person has a high likelihood of willful flight to 

avoid prosecution and is charged with *** [a] felony offense other than a Class 4 offense.” 725 

ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(8)(B) (West 2022). The State “bear[s] the burden of proving by clear and 

convincing evidence that *** no condition or combination of conditions *** can mitigate *** the 

defendant’s willful flight[.]” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(3) (West 2022).

¶ 19 “Willful flight” means:

“intentional conduct with a purpose to thwart the judicial process to avoid prosecution. 

Isolated instances of nonappearance in court alone are not evidence of the risk of willful 

flight. Reoccurrence and patterns of intentional conduct to evade prosecution, along with 

any affirmative steps to communicate or remedy any such missed court date, may be 
2024 IL App (2d) 230496-U 

- 7 - 

considered as factors in assessing future intent to evade prosecution.” 725 ILCS 5/110-

1(f) (West 2022).

¶ 20 As relevant here, the Act provides that, “[i]n determining which conditions of pretrial 

release, if any, will reasonably ensure the appearance of a defendant as required or the safety of 

any other person or the community and the likelihood of compliance by the defendant with all the 

conditions of pretrial release,” the circuit court shall take into account such matters as: (1) the 

nature and circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the

defendant, except that the court may consider the admissibility of any evidence sought to be 

excluded; (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, including the defendant’s character, 

physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence 

in the community, community ties, past relating to drug or alcohol abuse, conduct, history, criminal 

history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings and whether, at the time of the 

current offense or arrest, the defendant was on probation, parole, or on other release pending trial, 

sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under any law; (4) the nature and 

seriousness of the real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, 

based on the specific articulable facts of the case, that would be posed by the defendant’s release, 

if applicable, as required under paragraph (7.5) of Section 4 of the Rights of Crime Victims and 

Witnesses Act; and (5) the nature and seriousness of the risk of obstructing or attempting to 

obstruct the criminal justice process that would be posed by the defendant’s release, if applicable. 

725 ILCS 5/110-5(a) (West 2022).

¶ 21 Defendant argues that, assuming he had a high likelihood of willful flight, the State did not 

prove by clear and convincing evidence that pretrial release conditions could not mitigate it. He 

notes that defense counsel argued that the court could have required defendant to remain in 
2024 IL App (2d) 230496-U 

- 8 - 

McHenry County and that, even if he had no income, his mother lives in Crystal Lake and a brother 

lives in Hawthorn Woods. He also suggests that the court could require him to surrender his 

passport, submit to GPS location tracking, and obey a limited inclusion zone. Defendant contends 

that the circuit court erred in determining that any conditions would be insufficient to mitigate his 

likelihood of willful flight because he could somehow use the $1.9 million he stole to defeat any 

conditions and flee the country. This was erroneous, he argues, because the court assumed two 

things about which the State made no proffer at all: that he (1) still had the funds and (2) had some 

way to turn money into a mechanism to defeat GPS location monitoring and other pretrial release 

conditions. As to the first, defendant asserts that the State did not proffer that he had $1.9 million 

under his control. The charging instruments alleged that he had stolen the funds using checks to 

himself and his business, as well as unauthorized wire transfers and that he had a power of attorney 

for Merritt, who was in a memory care facility. Defendant contends that nowhere did the State 

proffer evidence that he had secreted the funds. The method it proffered that he used did not 

suggest, he asserts, sophistication in financial chicanery: rather, the State proffered that he abused 

his position of trust to cut himself and his business checks. Defendant also argues that there is no 

reason to believe that he still has the money, and he suggests he could have used it to prop up his 

high-volume business, which he testified had been generating losses for years. Further, he argues 

that, to the extent he still had the money, there was no reason to think that it was held in anything 

more exotic than a bank connected either to him or his business, which, the day after the detention 

hearing, the State was already moving to freeze.2

2

On November 1, 2023, the State petitioned to freeze defendant’s assets. 720 ILCS 5/17-

56(h) (West 2022).
2024 IL App (2d) 230496-U 

- 9 - 

¶ 22 As to his assertion that the circuit court assumed that he had the mechanism to defeat GPS 

tracking, border controls, and flee the country, defendant asserts that he has no history of avoiding 

court orders, the crime he is charged with is not particularly sophisticated, and there was no 

evidence that suggested he has connections with criminals such as smugglers or document forgers. 

Buying illegal things, he suggests, is no simple matter, especially while under the State’s scrutiny 

and with no prior experience. To the extent that his seeking to move to Florida and expressing an 

interest in changing his name suggested willful flight, defendant asserts, they did not demonstrate 

the sophistication the circuit court determined he might possess.

¶ 23 We reject defendant’s arguments. The circuit court’s determination that no conditions 

could mitigate his risk of flight was reasonable. We find unavailing his suggestion that the State 

was required to proffer that he still had the money. In the absence of evidence that it was used to 

support his business, this is implicit in the allegations that he stole it. We also find unavailing 

defendant’s argument that, to the extent he still had the money, it would have been in a bank 

connected to him or his business and which the State had moved to freeze. Given his actions to 

move to Florida, it is reasonable to infer that he had the funds in the form of cash or a similar 

vehicle that could evade authorities. Indeed, his actions near the time of his arrest reflected that 

he intended to do so. The State proffered that, near the time of the bank investigation and his 

suicide attempt, defendant had sold his business and home, made statements that he intended to 

move to Florida in early November 2023, changed his phone number to a Florida number, and 

expressed interest in changing his name. The fact that defendant may have commenced 

preparation of these activities before he was arrested does not undermine a finding that he posed a 

flight risk and that no conditions could mitigate any risk of his willful flight. His actions focused 

on leaving Illinois, where he has spent his entire life and has family. Further, as the circuit court 
2024 IL App (2d) 230496-U 

- 10 - 

reasonably determined, the funds defendant allegedly stole provided him the ability to access 

resources to evade legal proceedings in Illinois or even the United States. Finally, defendant’s 

claim that he lacks financial sophistication is belied by the facts that he had a business that grossed 

over $2.5 million and allegedly stole $1.9 million from his aunt. 

¶ 24 In sum, the circuit court did not err in finding that no conditions could mitigate defendant’s 

real and present risk of willful flight. 

¶ 25 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 26 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of McHenry County. 

¶ 27 Affirmed.