2023 IL App (1st) 231897-U

THIRD DIVISION

December 27, 2023 

No. 1-23-1897B 

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).

______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v. 

IVAN PERALTA,

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Cook County. 

No. 23 MC 1112426 

Honorable 

Barbara L. Dawkins, 

Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE VAN TINE delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Reyes and D.B. Walker concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER 

¶ 1 Held: We reverse and remand this matter brought pursuant to the Pretrial Fairness Act

(Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023)), where the circuit court failed to provide a written 

summary explaining why less restrictive means would be insufficient to mitigate the threat 

 defendant’s release would present, as required under subsection 110-6.1(h)(1) of the Code 

of Civil Procedure. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West Supp. 2023). 

¶ 2 Defendant-appellant Ivan Peralta has filed a Pretrial Fairness Act (PFA) appeal under 

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023) from the circuit court’s order entered on 
1-23-1897B 

2 

October 3, 2023, which denied his pretrial release. The State charged Peralta with first degree 

murder and attempt first degree murder after Peralta shot two men on a Chicago city street, killing 

one of them and injuring the other. At the pretrial detention hearing, the circuit court held that the 

State had met its burden and proved by clear and convincing evidence that Peralta is ineligible for 

pretrial release. Peralta appeals. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand. 

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On the night of September 30, 2023, Peralta and his uncle were involved in a physical 

altercation with a group of men outside of a liquor store in Chicago. Peralta has tendered a 56-

second video of the incident from a nearby security camera that shows the events immediately 

prior and subsequent to the shootings outside of the liquor store. A man punches Peralta’s uncle in 

the face. Peralta then shoots that man and another man who had not struck the uncle. One of the 

men died and the other survived the incident. At the time of the incident, Peralta held a valid 

firearm owner’s identification card and concealed carry license. 

¶ 5 Based on the events of September 30, the State has charged Peralta with first degree murder 

and attempt first degree murder. Pretrial services assigned Peralta a score of 2 out of 6 on the “new 

criminal activity” scale, and a 1 out of 6 on the “failure to appear” scale. The State successfully 

petitioned the circuit court for defendant’s pretrial detention. The court found the following: (1) 

the proof was evident or the presumption was great that defendant has committed an offense that 

qualified for pretrial detention because there is a video of defendant firing multiple shots at a group 

of people during an altercation; (2) defendant’s release would pose a real and present threat to the 

safety of a person, persons, or the community, as he is seen discharging a firearm into a group of 

people, which is a disproportionate response to the threat in this incident; and (3) no condition or 

combination of conditions of pretrial release can mitigate that threat as he is seen firing multiple 
1-23-1897B 

3 

shots on a city street in connection with an altercation at a liquor store, and his pretrial services 

investigation score corresponded with a “3”. Peralta appeals all three findings.

¶ 6 ANALYSIS

¶ 7 On appeal, Peralta argues that he should be released from pretrial detention because the 

State failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) he committed murder or attempted 

to commit murder because he acted in self-defense; (2) he is a danger to any person or the 

community; and (3) no less restrictive conditions, such as electronic monitoring, required reporting 

to pretrial services, and curfew, could mitigate the threat he poses to other persons and the 

community. 

¶ 8 In response, the State argues that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in deciding 

to detain Peralta after finding that his conduct satisfied the three elements of the PFA inquiry. In 

essence, the State rehashed the court’s verbal and written findings, in which the court briefly noted 

each element and why Peralta satisfied it. The State did not address whether the court fulfilled its 

obligation to provide a written summary explaining why or why not less restrictive conditions 

could mitigate the threat Peralta presents.

¶ 9 In considering this appeal, this court has reviewed Peralta’s notice of appeal, as well as his 

supporting recording, supporting memorandum, and the 56-second video clip of the shooting he 

tendered. We have also reviewed the State’s response to Peralta’s memorandum.

¶ 10 Under section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, all defendants are presumed to be 

eligible for pretrial release, unless the State can show, by clear and convincing evidence, that a 

particular defendant should be denied pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e) (West Supp. 2023). 

Clear and convincing evidence is “that quantum of proof that leaves no reasonable doubt in the 

mind of the fact finder about the truth of the proposition in question.” In re Tiffany W., 2012 IL 
1-23-1897B 

4 

App (1st) 102492-B, ¶ 12. To detain a defendant prior to trial, the State must show, by clear and 

convincing evidence, that (1) the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant has 

committed a qualifying offense, (2) the defendant’s pretrial release poses a real and present threat 

to the safety of the community, and (3) that less restrictive conditions would not avoid that threat.

725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(d), (e) (West Supp. 2023). If the trial court determines that the defendant 

should be denied pretrial release, the court is required to make written findings summarizing the 

reasons for denying pretrial release. Id. § 110-6.1(h). 

¶ 11 In support of its finding as to the first element, the circuit court noted that “Defendant is 

on video firing multiple shots at a group of people during an altercation.” We find it evident that, 

based on the video footage, defendant did commit qualifying offenses by discharging a firearm 

into a group of men, killing one and injuring another. Both first degree murder and attempt first 

degree murder are qualifying offenses under subsection 110-6.1(a) of the Code. 725 ILCS 5/110-

6.1(a) (West Supp. 2023). We agree, as the circuit court pointed out on the record, that shooting 

multiple people in response to one of those people throwing a punch is disproportionate and 

therefore cannot qualify as self-defense. Accordingly, Peralta likely cannot negate the murder 

charge by claiming self-defense. Thus, at the very least, the presumption is great that Peralta 

committed the charged offenses.

¶ 12 As to the second element, the circuit court noted that “Defendant fired multiple shots into 

a crowd during/after a physical altercation which was a disproportionate response to the threat. 

Defendant’s PSI level corresponds with a level 3.” Again, based on the video footage, it is evident 

that Peralta poses a real and present threat to other people and the community at large. The video 

shows Peralta discharging his gun into a group of people on a busy Chicago street. During the 56-

second video, at least four vehicles drive down the street adjacent to the liquor store, and at least 
1-23-1897B 

5 

one pedestrian can be seen in the area. If Peralta had missed his intended targets, there is a real 

chance that an errant bullet could have struck one of the vehicles, or a nearby pedestrian. Based 

on the foregoing, Peralta poses a real and present threat.

¶ 13 As to the third element, the circuit court stated that “Defendant fired multiple shots on a 

city street [illegible] to an altercation at a liquor store. His PSA score corresponds with a 3.” We 

find that this explanation falls short of the requirements of subsection 110-6.1(h)(1), which 

mandate a “written finding summarizing the court’s reasons for concluding that the defendant 

should be denied pretrial release, including why less restrictive conditions would not avoid 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.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West Supp. 2023). Here, there is no 

indication in the court’s verbal ruling or written order that it considered less restrictive conditions, 

let alone an explanation of why less restrictive conditions would not mitigate the threat. We 

therefore remand the matter to the circuit court to reconsider its decision on this element. On 

remand, we instruct the circuit court to make written findings explaining why less restrictive 

conditions would not mitigate the threat Peralta poses, should the court decide to detain him. To 

be clear, we express no opinion on what the ultimate decision on this third element ought to be. 

Rather, we direct the circuit court to consider the possibility of less restrictive conditions under 

subsection 110-10(b), and explain why or why not such alternatives would be effective to mitigate 

the threat Peralta poses.

¶ 14 CONCLUSION

¶ 15 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court, and remand the 

matter for consideration consistent with this order.

¶ 16 Reversed and remanded.