2023 IL App (4th) 230833-U 

NO. 4-23-0833 

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. 

LATOYA MILTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Rock Island County 

No. 23CF614 

Honorable

Peter W. Church, 

Judge Presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Zenoff and Knecht concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant pretrial release.

¶ 2 Defendant, Latoya Milton, appeals the trial court’s order denying her pretrial 

release under article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/art. 110 

(West 2022)), as recently amended by Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known 

as the Pretrial Fairness Act (Act). On appeal, defendant seeks leave to file a late memorandum in 

support of her appeal, challenging the State’s authority to file a petition to deny her pretrial release 

and arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s detention order. We deny 

defendant’s request for leave to file a late memorandum and affirm the court’s order.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On August 5, 2023, the State charged defendant with possession of a stolen firearm 

NOTICE

This Order was filed under 

Supreme Court Rule 23 and is 

not precedent except in the 

limited circumstances allowed 

under Rule 23(e)(1). 

FILED

December 5, 2023

Carla Bender

4th District Appellate

Court, IL
- 2 - 

(720 ILCS 5/24-3.8(a), (b) (West 2022)) and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (id. 

§ 24-1.1(e)). It alleged defendant possessed “a black Hi-Point 9mm” firearm while knowing that 

it had been stolen and without being entitled to possess it. The State also alleged that defendant 

was previously convicted of a felony offense in Rock Island County case No. 15-CF-360. At a 

hearing the same day, the trial court set defendant’s bond at $50,000, requiring a deposit of 10%. 

Defendant did not post bond and remained in detention.

¶ 5 On August 7, 2023, a pretrial bond report was filed. The report stated defendant 

refused to be interviewed and, as a result, “[n]o risk assessment was completed.” It further showed 

that defendant had a lengthy criminal history, including several prior felony convictions and

“multiple prior [failures to appear] in her background.”

¶ 6 On August 16, 2023, defendant filed a motion for reduction of bail. Following a 

hearing, the trial court reduced defendant’s bond to “$20,000 with 10% to apply.” Again, 

defendant did not post bond and remained in detention.

¶ 7 On September 11, 2023, defendant filed a motion for pretrial release, referencing 

sections 110-2 and 110-6.1 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-2, 110-6.1 (West 2022)). She asked the 

court to immediately order her release from detention on the conditions that she appear as ordered, 

submit herself to the orders of the court, not violate any criminal statutes, and surrender all 

firearms.

¶ 8 Three days later, on September 14, 2023, the State filed a verified petition to deny 

defendant pretrial release, citing section 110-6.1(a)(1) of the Code (id. § 110-6.1(a)(1)). It asserted 

defendant was charged with a felony offense for which, based on the charge or defendant’s 

criminal history, a sentence of imprisonment was required upon conviction, “and the defendant’s 

pretrial release pose[d] a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the 
- 3 - 

community.” As a factual basis in support of its request for the denial of pretrial release, the State 

alleged that at 3:16 a.m. on August 5, 2023, defendant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by the 

police. During the traffic stop, a police canine “alerted on the vehicle.” An officer searched 

defendant and located a hard object, which was found to be “a black Hi-Point C9 9mm” firearm 

that had been reported stolen. The State also alleged that in September 2015, defendant was found 

guilty in case No. 15-CF-360 of a Class 4 felony offense.

¶ 9 On September 18, 2023, the trial court conducted a detention hearing in the matter. 

In support of its request to deny defendant pretrial release, the State recounted the information set 

forth in its factual basis, pointed out that defendant had 11 prior felony convictions, and noted she 

refused an interview with pretrial services. It further argued that defendant was charged with a 

felony offense that was detainable and not subject to probation. Regarding the “dangerousness 

standard,” the State argued as follows:

“[D]angerousness would be the previous felony convictions as well as the current 

weight of the evidence. All of this was captured on body worn or squad camera 

with the weapon being located and we would also state that her refusal to be 

interviewed as well as the 11 previous felony convictions would show an intent to 

obstruct prosecution.” 

Defendant’s counsel responded by arguing that defendant’s criminal history did not involve any 

crimes of violence or crimes involving a gun and that nothing articulable about the facts of the 

case indicated defendant posed a threat to any person or the community.

¶ 10 Ultimately, the trial court ordered defendant to remain in detention. It found the 

presumption was great that defendant committed the charged offenses and that the State had met 

its burden of proving dangerousness. The court stated defendant’s “extensive prior history, the 
- 4 - 

nature of the current offense, and the fact that there was no cooperation on the pretrial bond report” 

caused it to have concerns about defendant’s “safety in the community.” Further, the court found 

there were “no conditions which would reasonably ensure the appearance or prevent the defendant 

from being charged with a subsequent offense.” The same day, the court entered a written order 

for detention, finding by clear and convincing evidence that (1) proof was evident or the 

presumption great that defendant had committed a detainable offense, (2) defendant posed a real 

and present threat to the safety of any person, persons, or the community, and (3) no condition or 

combination of conditions could mitigate the real and present safety threat posed by defendant. 

¶ 11 Also on September 18, 2023, defendant filed a notice of appeal pursuant to Illinois 

Supreme Court Rule 604(h) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023), seeking to vacate the trial court’s detention order. 

Using the form approved for Rule 604(h) appeals, defendant identified two claims of error. First, 

she checked a box on the form indicating that a ground for her requested relief was the State’s 

failure “to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that [she] pose[d] a real 

and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, based on the specific, 

articulable facts of the case.” In the space provided on the form for elaboration as to that ground, 

defendant asserted there were “insufficient facts alleged in [the] State’s proffer.” Second, 

defendant checked a box on the form indicating a further ground for her requested relief was that 

“[t]he court erred in its determination that no condition or combination of conditions would 

reasonably ensure [her] appearance *** for later hearings or prevent [her] from being charged with 

a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor.” In the space provided for elaboration on that

ground, defendant claimed “insufficient facts alleged by [the] court.”

¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13 A. Motion Taken With the Case
- 5 - 

¶ 14 On appeal, defendant has filed a motion for leave to file a memorandum in support 

of her Rule 604(h) appeal instanter, which we ordered taken with the case. In the motion—filed 

November 15, 2023—defendant asserted her memorandum was untimely “due to undersigned 

counsel mistakenly believed [sic] a second notice of appeal had been filed in the case.” She asked 

this court to allow the filing of her memorandum, which she attached to her motion. Defendant’s 

attached memorandum set forth two grounds for vacating the trial court’s detention order: (1) that 

the State lacked the authority to petition for her detention because prior to the effective date of the 

Act, the court had ordered her released on a cash bond and (2) the State did not prove by clear and 

convincing evidence that she posed a safety threat to any person or persons or the community.

¶ 15 The State has filed an objection to defendant’s motion, noting defendant’s 

memorandum was due to be filed no later than November 1, 2023, and was, thus, 14 days overdue 

by the time defendant sought leave to file her memorandum instanter. Additionally, it complains 

that the proposed memorandum included “new arguments” that were unrelated to any grounds for 

relief set forth in defendant’s notice of appeal.

¶ 16 Pursuant to Rule 604(h)(1)(iii), a defendant may appeal from an order denying him 

or her pretrial release. Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)(1)(iii) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023). However, the appellate 

procedure for reviewing these types of interlocutory orders is significantly abbreviated. Ill. S. Ct. 

R. 604(h)(2), (h)(3), (h)(5) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023). In particular, a defendant must file his or her 

notice of appeal within 14 days of the order from which review is being sought. Ill. S. Ct. R. 

604(h)(2) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023). Docketing statements are not required, and the rule does not 

provide for briefing by the parties. Id. Rather, the notice of appeal must “describe the relief 

requested and the grounds for the relief requested.” Id. Such language suggests “some form of 

argument is required, along with justification for claiming entitlement to relief—like references to 
- 6 - 

the record, the evidence presented, or, if possible, legal authority.” People v. Inman, 2023 IL App 

(4th) 230864, ¶ 12.

¶ 17 Additionally, “the appellant may file, but is not required to file, a memorandum.” 

Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)(2) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023). The memorandum may not exceed 4500 words and 

must be filed within 21 days of the filing of the supporting record, which must itself be filed within 

30 days of the filing of the notice of appeal. Id. Further, the appellee may also file a memorandum 

in response to either the appellant’s memorandum, or if one is not filed, the notice of appeal. Id. 

The appellee’s response must “be filed within 21 days of the time for filing the appellant’s 

memorandum.” Id. After the time for filing any response and memorandum has expired, this court 

must consider and decide the appeal within 14 days. Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)(5) (eff. Sept.18, 2023).

¶ 18 Notably, “[r]eplies and extensions of time will be allowed only by order of court 

for good cause shown.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)(2) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023). Further, the supreme court 

rules otherwise provide that “[m]otions for extensions of time shall be filed on or before the due 

date of the document the party is seeking an extension of time to file.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 361(f) (eff. 

Feb. 1, 2023).

¶ 19 In this instance, defendant’s notice of appeal was filed on September 18, 2023, the 

same day the trial court entered its written detention order. The supporting record was filed and 

sent to the parties on October 11, 2023, meaning that any memorandum filed by defendant was 

due on or before November 1, 2023. Instead of filing her motion within the required time frame or 

requesting an extension of time under the rules, defendant moved to file her motion instanter 14 

days after her filing deadline expired and only 7 days before the State’s response was due. Given 

the shortened time frames applicable to Rule 604(h) appeals, we do not find defendant’s 14-day 

delay to be insignificant. Additionally, defendant’s rationale for her untimely filing—counsel’s 
- 7 - 

belief that a second notice of appeal had been filed—is unconvincing. It is the filing of the 

supporting record that triggers the time period within which an appellant’s memorandum must be 

filed, not the notice of appeal. Defendant’s single-sentence explanation does little to clarify her 

lengthy delay in submitting her memorandum.

¶ 20 Moreover, as stated, a Rule 604(h) notice of appeal must set forth grounds for the 

relief being requested. Recently, in People v. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶ 19, we held

that our review under the Act is limited “to the issues fairly raised by a liberal construction of 

defendant’s notice of appeal,” and issues not raised in the notice were forfeited. There, the 

defendant raised issues in his memorandum that were not set forth in his notice of appeal. Id. ¶ 16. 

In finding our review of the issues was limited, we noted the requirements of Rule 604(h) and 

stated that, while the contents of a notice of appeal are to be liberally construed, “this court does 

not have authority to excuse compliance with the filing requirements of the supreme court rules 

governing appeals.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. ¶ 18. 

¶ 21 Here, not only was there a significant delay by defendant with respect to the filing 

of her memorandum, the memorandum attached to her motion presented grounds that were clearly 

not raised in her notice of appeal. Given the circumstances presented, we deny defendant’s motion 

for leave to file a memorandum supporting her Rule 604(h) appeal instanter, and we consider only 

the grounds for relief set forth in defendant’s timely filed notice of appeal.

¶ 22 B. Denial of Pretrial Release

¶ 23 In her notice of appeal, defendant asserted the facts alleged by the State and found 

by the trial court were insufficient to support the court’s detention order. We disagree.

¶ 24 The record shows the State sought to prevent defendant’s pretrial release citing 

section 110-6.1(a)(1) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1) (West 2022)). That section provides 
- 8 - 

that a court may deny a defendant pretrial release if the defendant is charged with a felony offense 

other than a forcible felony, a sentence of imprisonment is required by law upon conviction, “and 

it is alleged that the defendant’s pretrial release poses a real and present threat to the safety of any 

person or persons or the community, based on the specific articulable facts of the case.” Id. Under 

such circumstances, the State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that 

(1) “the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant has committed” a detainable 

offense, (2) “the defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or 

the community, based on the specific articulable facts of the case,” and (3) no condition or 

combination of conditions set forth in section 110-10(b) of the Code (id. § 110-10(b)) could 

mitigate the safety threat. Id. § 110-6.1(e)).

¶ 25 On appeal, we review the trial court’s detention order for an abuse of discretion. 

Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶¶ 10-11. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the circuit 

court’s decision is arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would agree 

with the position adopted by the [circuit] court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. ¶ 10. 

¶ 26 In her notice of appeal, defendant first asserted the State failed to meet its burden 

of proving dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence, arguing there were “insufficient facts 

alleged in [it’s] proffer.” Notably, however, she raised no challenge to either the court’s finding 

that (1) the proof was evident or the presumption great that she committed a detainable offense or 

(2) no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the threat to the safety of the 

community. Ultimately, the court found that the State had sufficiently proved dangerousness, 

stating defendant’s extensive criminal history, the nature of the current offense, and defendant’s 

lack of cooperation on the pretrial bond report caused it to have concerns about the safety threat 

she posed to the community. Its findings were supported by evidence presented at the hearing, 
- 9 - 

which showed that during an early morning traffic stop, defendant was found to be carrying a

stolen firearm on her person. Additionally, not only did defendant unlawfully possess the weapon 

as a convicted felon, but she also had a significant criminal record that included at least 11 felony 

convictions. Further, the evidence was undisputed that defendant had refused an interview with 

pretrial services following her arrest.

¶ 27 Based on the evidence presented and the arguments of the parties, we cannot say 

the trial court’s decision to deny defendant pretrial release was arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, 

or such that no reasonable person could agree. Id. ¶ 10. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion 

by the court.

¶ 28 We note that in her notice of appeal, defendant also asserted that the trial court erred 

in finding “that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably ensure the appearance 

of defendant for later hearings or prevent the defendant from being charged with a subsequent 

felony or Class A misdemeanor.” Although the record shows the court also made this finding at 

the detention hearing, we find it unnecessary to consider its propriety given our determination that 

the court did not err by detaining defendant on the basis that she posed a threat to the safety of the 

community. 

¶ 29 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 30 For the reasons stated, we deny defendant’s motion for leave to file a Rule 604(h) 

memorandum instanter and affirm the trial court’s order. 

¶ 31 Affirmed.