2024 IL App (2d) 230449-U 

No. 2-23-0449 

Order filed February 6, 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 Kane County. 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 23-CF-2135 

) 

MICHAEL E. BREWER, ) Honorable 

) Michael J. Noland, 

Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Hutchinson and Birkett concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

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

pretrial release. Affirmed.

¶ 2 In this interlocutory appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023), 

defendant, Michael E. Brewer, 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 101-652 and 

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

 See Rowe v. 

1

The Act has also been referred to as the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today 
2024 IL App (2d) 230449-U 

- 2 - 

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

Defendant argues that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request that the court assess 

the feasibility of supervising his medication compliance as a condition of release. We affirm. 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On October 10, 2023, the State charged defendant with domestic battery (contact, one-totwo prior convictions2

) (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(2) (West 2022)), domestic battery (physical 

contact) (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(2) (West 2022)), domestic battery (bodily harm) (720 ILCS 5/12-

3.2(a)(1) (West 2022)), and obstructing a police officer (720 ILCS 5/31-1(a)(2) (West 2022)). It 

alleged that defendant grabbed his son, Michael E. Brewer (Michael), by the throat, lifted him up, 

and pushed him against a wall and that defendant disobeyed an order to not walk away and pulled

away when a police officer attempted to stop him. 

¶ 5 A police report related that, on October 6, 2023, Elgin police officer Katherine Kirsh 

responded to 256 Michigan St, Unit C, for a domestic battery, after a caller advised dispatch that 

his father was attempting to fight with him. At the scene, Kirsh met with Michael’s sister, Michelle 

Brewer, and defendant. Defendant advised that Michael had left the residence. Defendant was 

upset and shouted, “He’s a dead man!” and “I’m going to kill him!” Defendant also stated that 

Michael is “evil” and “must be killed.”

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

public acts.

2

Defendant had prior Kane County convictions in case Nos. 23-CF-46001 and 19-CM1513. 
2024 IL App (2d) 230449-U 

- 3 - 

¶ 6 Defendant then walked to another, unrelated incident near the intersection of Gifford Place 

and Raymond Street. Officer Kirsh instructed defendant to remain where he was, as Kirsh 

observed officers with drawn service weapons at the unrelated incident. Defendant did not follow 

Kirsh’s instructions, and Kirsh attempted to stop him by grabbing defendant’s arm. However, 

defendant pulled away and continued walking toward the direction of the unrelated incident. 

Michelle and Kirsh eventually took defendant back to the residence.

¶ 7 Later, at the hospital, Michael did not allow officer Kirsh to photograph his reported 

injuries. Kirsh reported that she did not observe any injuries to Michael but noticed a red stain on 

his left hand.

¶ 8 Defendant and Michelle separately related the following to officer Kirsh. Michael was not 

attending school and was taking drugs. He was disrespectful to defendant and picked up a knife. 

Michelle took the knife away, and defendant grabbed Michael’s throat and lifted him off the 

ground. Michael told Michelle to call the police, and she was concerned defendant would kill 

Michael. Michael hit defendant in the face, defendant let Michael go, and Michael left the 

residence.

¶ 9 Officer Kirsh further related that, following the October 6 incident, defendant was arrested 

for domestic battery and, after being taken into custody, continued to make homicidal statements 

and begin making suicidal statements. Crisis counselor Cortes completed an involuntary petition, 

and defendant was transported to St. Joseph’s hospital. Officer Hall spoke with Michael and 

related to officer Kirsh that Michael had visible, fresh scratch marks on the back of his neck and 

that Michael advised that he returned home and he and defendant got into a verbal altercation that 

led to both of them shoving each other. Michael left the residence. He did not mention defendant 

grabbing his throat. 
2024 IL App (2d) 230449-U 

- 4 - 

¶ 10 A. State’s Petition to Detain

¶ 11 On October 12, 2023, the State filed a verified petition to deny pretrial release, alleging 

that defendant committed a detainable offense, domestic battery, and that he had previous domestic 

battery convictions in 2019 (misdemeanor) and 2023 (felony), the latter for which he was on 

probation. He also had previous felony convictions for robbery (2009) and burglary (1997) and 

misdemeanor convictions for driving under the influence (2017), battery (1996), and theft (1996). 

The State also alleged that defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person or 

the community. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(4) (West 2022).

¶ 12 The parties appeared on this case, and the circuit court continued the case to the following 

day, noting that defendant was not present because Elgin police reported that he was in the hospital.

¶ 13 Ultimately, the hearing on the State’s petition occurred on October 19, 2023. The State

tendered the October 2023 police report and two additional reports. 

¶ 14 In case No. 2023-CF-46, a police synopsis related that, on January 6, 2023, defendant (who 

is 6 feet 7 inches tall and weighs 340 pounds), Stephanie Clayton (his wife), and Michelle were 

having a physical and verbal altercation over money problems. Defendant called police, and 

defendant relayed to police that Michelle hit the top of his head with an umbrella, but he was 

uncooperative in explaining what had happened. Michelle related that defendant became 

aggravated after she refused to give him money, and he charged at her and Clayton and struck 

Michelle in the face with a closed fist. Michelle then took an umbrella and struck defendant in the 

head to defend herself. The officer observed a swollen bruise on Michelle’s lower lip that was 

bleeding. After defendant was taken into custody, he made suicidal statements and stated that he 

would rather die than go back to jail. He was transported to Lake Behavioral in Waukegan for 
2024 IL App (2d) 230449-U 

- 5 - 

inpatient treatment. Defendant was charged with domestic battery (physical contact - other prior 

conviction) and domestic battery (bodily harm – other prior conviction).

¶ 15 In case No. 2019-CM-1513, a police synopsis related that, on June 14, 2019, defendant was 

intoxicated at his home and argued with Clayton (his then girlfriend). During the argument, 

defendant kicked Clayton in the face, which resulted in a cut to her lower lip. They continued to 

argue and threaten each other, until Clayton called the police. Defendant was taken into custody 

and charged with domestic battery (bodily harm) (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(1) (West 2018)).

¶ 16 At the hearing on its petition, the State relied on defendant’s prior convictions to argue that 

he has a history of violence and poses a threat to Michael and that no conditions could mitigate his 

threat. It also noted defendant’s height and weight, the fact that he was on probation, and his 

homicidal and suicidal statements. The State also noted that, in case No. 2019-CM-1513, 

defendant’s probation was unsatisfactorily terminated, and it argued that it was unlikely that 

defendant would comply with any conditions of release.

¶ 17 Defense counsel responded that defendant had been in the hospital for two weeks and, 

pursuant to probation, was in domestic violence counseling and anger management counseling (at 

Crisis Center). He was then put into a 28-day inpatient program substance abuse at Gateway and 

was currently in an outpatient program.

¶ 18 Counsel further proffered that Michael was using illegal substances and argued with 

defendant. Michael did not mention to police that defendant grabbed his throat or pushed him 

against a wall, and the arresting officer did not observe any injuries on him. Based on this 

evidence, counsel argued that the State had not established that the proof was evident or the 

presumption great that defendant committed the charged offenses.
2024 IL App (2d) 230449-U 

- 6 - 

¶ 19 Defense counsel also argued that dangerousness had not been established, where defendant 

was currently taking seven prescribed medications for his mental health issues and was cleared 

from the hospital and determined to no longer be a threat to himself or the public. Counsel 

maintained that defendant was not able to take his seven medications at the Kane County jail 

(“they’re not the same medications the jail issues”) and that, if found to be a threat, he could stay 

with his sister in Schaumburg.

¶ 20 B. Circuit Court’s Ruling

¶ 21 The circuit court granted the State’s petition, finding that anger issues underlie defendant’s 

behavior, whether related to mental health issues or the facts surrounding his current and prior 

convictions, which involved forcible felonies and violent offenses reflecting a pattern of behavior 

“probably based on mental health issues[.]” The court continued, 

“the fact that he’s on seven different forms of medication and he does not have 

access to those necessarily is a true concern for the Court. Those are conditions that the 

Court cannot control and evidently he being unsupervised, unattended to in a manner that 

would control his behavior, it is evident to the Court that there is at least a real and present 

threat to himself, if no one else. He may have suicidal ideations as well from what I’m 

hearing here and that’s a real concern for the Court as well.”

¶ 22 Defendant interrupted, stating that he had a three-month supply of his medications, the 

resources to see his psychiatrist once per week in Carpentersville, and to attend all his meetings, a 

12-step program, and anger management counseling. The jail, he asserted, does not provide the 

types of medication he takes. Defendant also noted that he is diagnosed with Bipolar 1, Bipolar 3, 

anxiety, and clinical depression. Defense counsel offered that it took two weeks to get defendant 

properly medicated and that, “if he remains in the jail, he’s going back to square one.”
2024 IL App (2d) 230449-U 

- 7 - 

¶ 23 The State replied that defendant was not complying with his medication at the time of the 

events in this case, which was not an isolated incident. 

¶ 24 The court stated that the issue was ultimately for the trier of fact to decide at trial, where

the State could call an expert witness to testify as to defendant’s prescription and medication 

compliance.

¶ 25 The court found that defendant was a real and present threat to his family, to others, and to 

himself. “I have not heard any rebuttal regarding any suicidal ideations that have been reported 

here.” Defense counsel interrupted, stating that the “hospital would not release [defendant] if they 

didn’t find he was no longer---,” at which point the court stated this was a “supposition” and that

no doctor’s report was offered in support. Counsel also asked about conditions of release, such as 

defendant staying with his sister in Schaumburg, and the circuit court rejected this request, finding 

that there was no “guarantee” that defendant would stay away from “his other family members” 

or that he would be compliant. Defendant interrupted, noting he was on probation, but the circuit 

court noted that he had also been terminated as unsatisfactory. 

¶ 26 The circuit court set the next hearing one week later, noting that, if defendant was without 

medication for one week, the court was “sorry for that and I wish we could do better, but at this 

point I just don’t feel as though we can[.]”

¶ 27 In its written order, the court found that less restrictive conditions would not assure the 

community’s safety, where there was a low level of assurance that defendant will have access (or 

will necessarily comply) with medications to successfully and timely manage his mental health 

issues.

¶ 28 Defendant appealed. On January 3, 2024, he filed a memorandum in support of his appeal, 

and, on January 29, 2024, the State responded. 
2024 IL App (2d) 230449-U 

- 8 - 

¶ 29 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 30 Defendant requests that we remand the case for the circuit court to assess whether 

supervision of his medicine intake can sufficiently mitigate public safety risks to grant him liberty. 

He concedes that the issue is forfeited, because defense counsel did not seek this specific condition 

in the circuit court. However, he requests that we address the issue as an ineffective-assistanceof-counsel claim. Defendant asserts that the issue had merit (thus, establishing defense counsel’s 

deficient performance for failing to pursue a meritorious claim) and that any extra time in custody 

is prejudicial to him. For the following reasons, we find defendant’s argument unavailing.3

¶ 31 Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are resolved under the standard set forth in 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504 (1984). Under 

Strickland, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was deficient and that such 

deficient performance substantially prejudiced the defendant. Id. at 687. To demonstrate 

performance deficiency, a defendant must establish that counsel’s performance fell below an 

objective standard of reasonableness. People v. Edwards, 195 Ill. 2d 142, 163 (2001). To show 

sufficient prejudice, “[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for 

3

In his form notice of appeal, defendant checked boxes, with no elaboration, asserting that 

the State did not meet its burden of showing that the proof is evident and the presumption great 

that he committed the charged offenses, that it established dangerousness, and that no conditions 

could mitigate the risk he posed or his willful flight. He also checked a box, asserting that he was 

denied a fair hearing, elaborating that the hearing was not held by the proper deadline. None of 

the foregoing arguments are addressed in his memorandum, therefore, we do not reach them. 

People v. Rollins, 2024 IL App (2d) 230372, ¶ 22.
2024 IL App (2d) 230449-U 

- 9 - 

counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A 

reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. The “effectiveness of *** counsel must be assessed against an 

objective standard of reasonableness from the perspective of the time of the alleged error and 

without hindsight.” People v. Reed, 2014 IL App (1st) 122610, ¶ 66. A failure to establish either 

prong of the Strickland test is fatal to a claim of ineffective assistance. People v. Peterson, 2017 

IL 120331, ¶ 79.

¶ 32 If the defendant does not raise his or her ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the 

circuit court, our review on appeal is de novo. People v. Berrier, 362 Ill. App. 3d 1153, 1166-67 

(2006). Further, 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 

mandatory conditions of release would fail to protect any person or the community. 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.

¶ 33 Defendant contends that his behavior stemmed from mental illness and that medication’s 

potential to manage his illness was clear. The circuit court’s determination that defendant would 

not remain medication compliant, he argues, was erroneous because it assumed that he would be 

unsupervised. Defendant argues that defense counsel should have argued for supervised 

medication intake and that such an option would both be a reasonable and least restrictive condition 

and address the court’s concern that defendant would not take his medications. Defendant 

concedes that not all counties have the same social service programs, but requests, without citing 
2024 IL App (2d) 230449-U 

- 10 - 

to relevant authority,4 that we remand for the court to assess the feasibility of supervised medicine 

intake.

¶ 34 We cannot conclude that counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue an argument for 

supervised medication intake. In the absence of evidence that there exists such a program in Kane 

County, counsel’s performance cannot be characterized as deficient. Indeed, the circuit court 

stated, “I wish we could do better, but at this point I just don’t feel as though we can[.]” Nor has 

defendant shown prejudice. Strickland requires a defendant to show actual prejudice to succeed 

on his or her claim, rather than mere speculation as to prejudice. People v. Bew, 228 Ill. 2d 122, 

135-36 (2008). Again, there is no evidence that a supervised medication program exists, and, 

therefore, prejudice cannot be shown. Stated differently, there is no reasonable probability that, 

but for counsel’s alleged error, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

¶ 35 Where the circuit court finds that the State proved a valid threat to the safety of any person 

or the community, the court must determine which pretrial release conditions, “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.” 725 ILCS 5/110-5(a)(1)-(6) (West 2022). In reaching its determination, the circuit court 

must consider: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the 

evidence against the defendant; (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant; (4) the nature 

4

Defendant cites to an involuntary commitment case involving a respondent who resided 

in a transitional rehabilitation program, where the court affirmed the commitment, in part, because 

the order required supervised medication so that the respondent would not pose a risk to others. 

In the Interest of K.J.L., 541 N.W.2d 698, 701 (N.D. 1996).
2024 IL App (2d) 230449-U 

- 11 - 

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

that would be posed by the defendant’s release; (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; and (6) when a person is charged with, as relevant here, domestic battery, the 

court may consider certain additional factors. Id. The additional factors a court may consider 

when a defendant is charged with domestic battery include: (1) whether the alleged incident 

involved harassment or abuse as defined in the domestic violence statute; (2) whether the 

defendant has a history of domestic violence or a history of other criminal acts; (3) the defendant’s 

mental health; (4) whether the defendant has a history of violating court orders; (5) whether the 

defendant has been or is potentially a threat to any other person; (6) whether the defendant has 

access to deadly weapons or has a history of using deadly weapons; (7) whether the defendant has 

a history of abusing alcohol or any controlled substance; (8) the severity of the alleged incident; 

(9) whether a separation from the victim of abuse or a termination of the relationship between them 

has recently occurred or is pending; (10) whether the defendant has exhibited obsessive or 

controlling behaviors toward the victim; (11) whether the defendant has expressed suicidal or 

homicidal ideations; and (12) any other factors the court deems have a reasonable bearing upon 

the defendant’s propensity or reputation for violent, abusive, or assaultive behavior, or lack of that 

behavior. Id. § 110-5(a)(6).

¶ 36 The circuit court considered the foregoing facts concerning defendant’s mental health 

issues, finding that they likely contributed to his actions in his case. It noted defendant’s 

medications and the fact that he would not have access to them in the jail, which would render 

him, at a minimum, a threat to himself. However, it also noted with respect to defendant’s suicidal 

ideations that there was no rebuttal evidence, such as a doctor’s report, reflecting that defendant 
2024 IL App (2d) 230449-U 

- 12 - 

was no longer a threat (presumably) to himself. The court considered defense counsel’s request 

that defendant stay with his sister but determined that no conditions of release would ensure that 

defendant would remain medication compliant and refrain from interacting with certain family 

members. These findings were not unreasonable, nor was the determination that no conditions of 

release could mitigate any threat defendant posed, particularly where, in addition to his mental 

health issues, he made homicidal statements, has a history of domestic violence, was on probation, 

and was previously unsatisfactorily terminated from probation.

¶ 37 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 38 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County. 

¶ 39 Affirmed.