2024 IL App (1st) 240768-U 

 SECOND DIVISION

 August 16, 2024 

 

No. 1-24-0768B 

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 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the

 ) Circuit Court of 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. 

 ) 

v. ) No. 241100954 

 ) 

SHAWN WALKER, ) Honorable 

 ) William Nicholas Fahy, 

 Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding. 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices Ellis and Cobbs concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Affirming the trial court’s order denying pretrial release, where the State sustained 

its burden of showing clear and convincing evidence that defendant committed a 

detainable offense, that he poses a safety threat, and that no condition or 

combination of conditions could mitigate that threat. 

¶ 2 Defendant, Shawn Walker, appeals the trial court’s order granting the State’s motion for 

pretrial detention. The record shows that defendant was charged with unlawful use or possession 

of a weapon based on allegations that on or about March 22, 2024, he knowingly possessed a 

machine gun in violation of 720 ILCS 5/24-1(A)(7) (West 2022). 
No. 1-24-0768B 

2 

¶ 3 On March 22, 2024, the State filed a verified petition for pretrial detention. That same day, 

the trial court held a hearing on the State’s motion.1

 At that hearing, the State proffered that 

 “[o]n March 21, 2024, at approximately 11:02 p.m., at 4439 North 

Bernard Street officers received a call of a concerned citizen with 

individuals in his yard at 4439 North Bernard Street with handguns and a 

rifle. 

The witness advised that these individuals were moving from the 

front yard to the backyard of the residence. Police arrived on the scene. As 

they arrived on the scene, they observed five male Black individuals who 

began to flee on foot. Officers initially lost sight of them and began touring 

the area.

While touring the area, one unit saw three potential suspects *** 

running near the yard at the residence of 4452 North Kimball. The subjects 

entered the yard in front of the residence and went into the backyard of the 

residence. Officers were surrounding the residence in an attempt to detain 

these individuals. Officers ordered them to stop and were able to stop [co-] 

defendant Myvette. Defendant Walker and another juvenile subject jumped 

the fence into another yard but were ultimately detained. When defendant 

Walker was detained, he provided a false name to police initially.

*** 

1

 Defendant’s pretrial detention hearing was conducted simultaneously with that of co-defendant 

Nigel Myvette. Co-defendant Myvette is not a party to this appeal.
No. 1-24-0768B 

3 

Officers searched the immediate area for firearms or weapons and 

*** in a nearby residence [they] recover[ed] a backpack. A *** black and 

white backpack with distinctive sharp teeth design.

The officers recovered from inside that backpack a loaded black 

Glock 19 9MM semiautomatic pistol with a green handle. The pistol had an 

automatic switch attachment and an extended magazine and was loaded 

with one live round in the chamber. 

The backpack also contained four Ziploc bags containing green 

leafy substance suspect cannabis. The officers made contact with the initial 

witness in this case who advised he had security cameras set up on his 

property. The officers reviewed the footage from the security cameras and 

observed defendant Walker wearing the same clothes that he was *** 

detained in. Be that a puffy jacket, faded jeans and white gym shoes. And 

he was wearing the black and white sharp teeth backpack that the officers 

recovered in the security camera footage. 

¶ 4 The State further asserted that defendant’s criminal history consisted of three juvenile 

adjudications for armed robbery with a firearm that were committed within days of each other in 

January 2023. In those cases, defendant, along with other unknown offenders, “would come up 

behind these individuals on the street, put a gun to them and demand their valuables, which 

included cell phones and wallets.” In all three cases, defendant was adjudicated delinquent. The 

State advised the court that defendant turned 18 in August 2023, and he had “now picked up a 

fourth gun related offense.” Defendant also had a warrant from juvenile court that was currently 
No. 1-24-0768B 

4 

before the court. The State also advised the court that defendant had served time in the Illinois 

Department of Juvenile Justice, but it did not know how much time was served. 

¶ 5 Based on the above, the State argued that the proof was evident or presumption great that 

defendant committed aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. In particular, the State argued that 

officers were able to match defendant’s clothing and the distinct backpack that was found, to the 

backpack and clothing defendant wore in the security footage. The State also argued that defendant 

posed a real and present threat to the safety of the community based on the evidence showing he 

possessed a machine gun, and ran from the police, discarding the gun on the streets of Chicago.

The State further argued that defendant’s prior adjudications showed that he “went on a robbery 

spree,” and those previous adjudications “did not deter him from continuing to possess illegal 

firearms.” The State argued that no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the risk 

that defendant presented to the safety of the community, pointing out that he is “currently on some 

sort of parole in the juvenile system, which he disregarded by illegally possessing a machine gun.”

¶ 6 Defense counsel responded, arguing that the State failed to meet its burden of showing by

clear and convincing evidence that defendant possessed the firearm or “that he had the requisite 

knowledge and ability and intent to control” the firearm. Counsel pointed out that the officers 

never observed defendant with a firearm in person or in the video, and instead, he was only 

connected to the firearm through the backpack. Counsel stated, however, that the evidence did not 

show “how close the backpack was found to” defendant, and speculated that there “might be 

multiple versions of the backpack.” Counsel further stated that the was “no allegation that 

[defendant] ha[d] continuous control over this backpack,” and it was “possible that at some point 

[defendant] had that backpack” but that during an “intermediary time” someone else “may have 

put a firearm in that backpack.” 
No. 1-24-0768B 

5 

¶ 7 Defense counsel further contended that defendant did not pose a danger to a person or the 

community because he was not observed taking the firearm out of the backpack or holding it. 

Defense counsel argued that it was not a violent offense because defendant was not seen “actually 

brandishing the firearm.” 

¶ 8 Finally, defense counsel argued that there were conditions of release that could be 

appropriate in this case. Defense counsel stated that defendant could comply with electronic 

monitoring and there was “no allegation that he has a history of escaping electronic monitor[ing] 

before.” Counsel stated that defendant did not have “any current pending cases” and he was not 

on parole. Defense counsel stated that “Out of his three juvenile adjudications, it appears two of 

them are closed. One of them is a probation matter. That may be what the warrant is in relation to. 

He has been on probation there for the past year it appears.” 

¶ 9 Defense counsel told the court that defendant was originally on electronic monitoring and 

it was removed, so counsel believed electronic monitoring had “worked in the past” and “[i]t looks 

like he has done well when he has been on probation.” Defense counsel told the court that 

defendant’s mother was present in court and she reported that defendant was living with her when 

he was on electronic monitoring and defendant “did well.” Defense counsel told the court that 

defendant still lives with his mother and “she needs him home because he helps with the siblings 

and helps take care of them. He has two younger siblings. He also has a one-year-old who he helps 

support.” Finally, defendant counsel further stated that defendant is “in the process of reenrolling 

in high school for 12th grade,” that he participates in a “hybrid job development probation type 

program,” and that he is employed at Fed Ex, working three nights per week. 

¶ 10 In ruling, the circuit court found that the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon 

is a detainable offense under the Pretrial Fairness Act. The court stated that it was taking into 
No. 1-24-0768B 

6 

consideration the State’s proffer as well as the “excellent points raised by the defense with regards 

to possible issues regarding possession.” The court explained that the defense raised several points 

“in regards to the issue of possession, which may be very genuine issues down the road at trial,” 

however, “[w]e are not at trial.” Based on the State’s proffer, the court believed that the 

“circumstantial evidence does show that the defendant was in possession of the firearm.” The court 

explained: 

“What I have before me is that *** around midnight of March 22 of 2023, 

law enforcement responded to a person with a gun call. Law enforcement 

arrived. They see a group matching the description. All of them, *** I 

believe all of them flee. Law enforcement loses sight of those individuals 

but continue[s] to tour the area. [A] [s]hort time later, they do see three of 

those individuals. 

Those individuals again flee from police. Ultimately, the defendant 

is detained *** near that area of 4250 or 4252 North Kimball. *** Shortly 

after the defendant was detained, they recovered a backpack, which has a 

distinctive design. *** Law enforcement did recover a backpack that was 

in the direction of where the defendant had fled or close to where he was 

arrested. Inside of that backpack with a distinctive design was a loaded 

machine gun with an extended magazine. Law enforcement viewed video 

security that was taken just prior to the recovery of the backpack. It showed 

the defendant in the same clothing that he was wearing when he was arrested 

wearing that same backpack that contained a loaded machine gun.” 
No. 1-24-0768B 

7 

¶ 11 Next, the court considered whether defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety 

of any person or persons or the community. The court noted that the nature and circumstances of 

the offense involved: 

“an 18-year-old [in a] densely populated residential area on the north side 

of Chicago with a backpack containing a loaded machine gun. I have to take 

that into consideration and I also have to take into consideration the 

defendant’s criminal history, which there’s none because he is 18. However, 

there are three armed robbery adjudications of guilty from 2023.

So there’s three separate armed robbery findings of delinquen[cy]. 

And here now in 2024 [he] is possessing a loaded machine gun. Given the 

totality of what I have heard, I do believe that the defendant [poses] a real 

and present danger to the safety of others should he be released.” 

¶ 12 The court then contemplated whether any condition or combination of conditions could 

mitigate that threat. The court explicitly considered 

“not just the issues raised by the defense with regards to possession but the 

fact that the defendant is 18 years of age. He has support here in court. His 

mother is here in court. Apparently, he is helpful with his mother at home. 

He had previously done some time on [electronic monitoring] when he was 

a juvenile. And he is in the process of reenrolling in school. I have weighed 

all of the mitigation that’s been presented by the defense. I have taken into 

consideration the nature and circumstance of this offense, which the court 

finds very troubling. An 18-year-old who was just recently adjudicated for 

three separate armed robberies is in possession of a loaded machine gun. A 
No. 1-24-0768B 

8 

weapon that belongs on the battlefield in the hands of a well-trained soldier, 

not in the hands of an 18-year-old in a densely populated area.” 

¶ 13 In light of the above, the trial court found electronic monitoring to be “willfully 

[in]adequate for a case like this” based on the “recency of three separate crimes of violence” and 

“the type of weapon that the defendant [chose] to arm himself with.” The court explained that 

electronic monitoring “is far from [f]ail safe” and the court did not believe it would “prevent this 

defendant from committing the crimes of violence or possessing firearms.” Accordingly, the court 

granted the State’s petition for pretrial detention. The trial court entered a written order on the 

same day, consistent with the above findings. 

¶ 14 Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on April 4, 2024. Utilizing the form approved 

for Rule 604(h) appeals by defendants, defense counsel checked three boxes, and submitted a 

“supplemental document,” expounding on those three claims of error. Defendant first asserted that 

the “State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the proof is 

evident or the presumption great that defendant committed the offense(s) charged.” Defendant 

specifically argued that the State failed to show that he “had immediate and exclusive control over 

the backpack that contained the firearm,” because he was not wearing the backpack when he was 

arrested, and the police did not see him discard the backpack. Defendant further argued that the 

security footage was insufficient to establish defendant’s possession because “[t]he State did not 

proffer how much time had passed between when the events on the camera footage were taken and 

when the backpack is recovered later.” 

¶ 15 Defendant also checked the box asserting that the “State failed to meet its burden of proving 

by clear and convincing evidence that defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any 
No. 1-24-0768B 

9 

person or persons or the community, based on the specific, articulable facts of the case.” In his 

supplemental document, defendant wrote, 

“In this case, the State has failed to meet its burden because the specific 

articulable facts of this case do not show that [defendant] poses a danger. 

[Defendant] was only alleged to have possessed the firearm but not 

to have used it in any manner. The only allegation is that the firearm was in 

a backpack that he at some point had on his back. There is no allegation that 

he was seen using the firearm in any manner, brandishing the firearm, or 

threatening with the firearm. Mere possession of a firearm, without any 

other allegations of violent or dangerous behavior, is not sufficient to find a 

real and present threat to safety.”

¶ 16 Finally, counsel checked the box stating that the “State failed to meet its burden of proving 

by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate 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 ***.” In the space below, counsel wrote that the State 

“did not meet its burden to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence 

why pretrial monitoring, pretrial services, electronic monitoring, or any 

other conditions of release less restrictive than incarceration would not 

mitigate any risk to specific persons or the community. The [S]tate did not 

proffer any charges for escape in his history. “ 

¶ 17 Thereafter, on July 3, 2024, defense counsel filed a notice of intent not to file a Rule 604(h) 

memorandum in this appeal. Counsel asserted that, after reviewing the record, counsel “concluded 

the notice of appeal with the attached supplement adequately communicates the defendant-
No. 1-24-0768B 

10 

appellant’s contentions of error relevant to the resolution of the appeal. Defendant-appellant elects 

to stand on the notice of appeal and will not file a Rule 604(h) memorandum” 

¶ 18 Pretrial release is governed by article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 

(Code) (725 ILCS 5/art. 110 (West 2024)). Upon the filing of a petition requesting an order 

denying a defendant’s pretrial release, it is the State’s burden to prove by clear and convincing 

evidence that (1) the presumption is great or the proof evident that the defendant committed a 

detainable offense, (2) the defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person(s) 

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

combination of conditions can mitigate the threat the defendant poses, or prevent the defendant’s 

willful flight from prosecution. Id. § 110-6.1(e)(1)-(3). The standard “requires proof greater than 

a preponderance, but not quite approaching the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 362 (2004). Although the applicable standard of review in a pretrial 

detention appeal has been the source of considerable disagreement in the Illinois appellate court

(see People v. Miller, 2024 IL App (1st) 240588, ¶ 27), we need not resolve which standard of 

review applies in this case, as the result would be the same under any standard. 

¶ 19 As stated above, defendant first contends that the State failed to meet its burden by proving 

by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was evident or the presumption great that 

defendant committed the offense charged.

¶ 20 Defendant is charged with unlawful use or possession of a weapon in violation of 720 ILCS 

5/24-1(A)(7) (West 2022), which provides that a “person commits the offense of unlawful use of 

weapons when he knowingly *** possesses *** a machine gun.” Possession may be either actual 

or constructive. To show actual possession, the State must show that the contraband was “in the 

immediate and exclusive control of [the] defendant” (People v. Frieberg, 147 Ill. 2d 326, 360 
No. 1-24-0768B 

11 

(1992)), and the State may show actual possession through acts such as hiding or trying to dispose 

of the contraband (People v. Carodine, 374 Ill. App. 3d 16, 25 (2007)). Constructive possession, 

by contrast, exists where the defendant had knowledge of the presence of the weapon and exercised 

immediate and exclusive control over the area where the weapon was found. People v. Jones, 2023 

IL 127810, ¶ 30. Knowledge and possession are factual questions to be resolved by the trier of 

fact. People v. Smith, 2015 IL App (1st) 132176, ¶ 25. “Where possession is proved, the element 

of knowledge may be inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances, and both knowledge 

and possession may be proved by circumstantial evidence.” People v. Eiland, 217 Ill. App. 3d 250, 

260 (1991). 

¶ 21 Here, the State’s proffer established that at 11:02 p.m., police received a call from a 

concerned citizen that there were individuals in his yard with handguns and a rifle. Police 

responded to that call, and the arrest report, which is included in the record on appeal, shows that 

defendant was arrested just over an hour later, at 12:03 a.m. The arrest report also indicates that 

after defendant was arrested, responding officers searched the “immediate area,” and found a 

backpack “with [a] distinctive shark teeth design,” with a loaded black Glock 19 9MM 

semiautomatic pistol inside. The officers then viewed security camera footage from the concerned 

citizen’s property, and observed defendant wearing the same clothes that he was wearing when he 

was detained, as well as the distinctive backpack. The evidence also shows that defendant fled 

from police, and once apprehended, gave police a false name, both of which are factors suggesting 

consciousness of guilt. People v. Harris, 225 Ill. 2d 1, 23 (2007) (“as a general matter, *** both 

evidence of flight and the use of an assumed name may be admissible as proof of consciousness 

of guilt.”). This evidence suggests that defendant possessed the machine gun that was found inside 

the backpack, and that he discarded it during his flight. 
No. 1-24-0768B 

12 

¶ 22 Although the trial court recognized that defendant may have some arguments at a trial to 

attempt to dispute his possession of the weapon, at this stage, the State does not need to prove 

defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶ 13. 

Instead, the State need only show that the proof is evident or the presumption great that the 

defendant has committed a qualifying offense “by clear and convincing evidence” (725 ILCS 

5/110-6.1(e)(1) (West 2022)). Based on the facts presented here, we agree with the trial court’s 

conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the State’s burden of showing clear and 

convincing evidence that defendant committed the offense charged. 

¶ 23 Next, defendant argues that the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that 

defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community. 

Defendant argues that he was not seen holding or brandishing the firearm, and claims that “mere 

possession *** is not sufficient to find a real and present threat to safety.” 

¶ 24 Pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g), the circuit court may consider various factors in

determining whether a defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or 

persons or the community. Those factors include the “nature and circumstances of any offense 

charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence, [or] involv[ed] a weapon”; the 

“history and characteristics of the defendant” including “prior criminal history indicative of 

violent, abusive or assaultive behavior,” specifically, including evidence from “juvenile 

proceedings”; “[w]hether the defendant is known to possess or have access to any weapon or 

weapons”; and “[w]hether, at the time of the current offense or any other offense or arrest, the 

defendant was on probation ***.” Id.

¶ 25 Here, the nature and circumstances of the offense demonstrated that the 18-year-old 

defendant was in a densely populated residential area on the north side of Chicago with a backpack 
No. 1-24-0768B 

13 

carrying a loaded machine gun. Defendant’s prior criminal history included three juvenile 

adjudications for armed robberies committed within days of each other in January 2023. In those

cases, defendant approached individuals from behind on the street, put a gun to them and 

demanded their valuables. Moreover, defendant is clearly “known to possess or have access to any 

weapon or weapons,” as this is his fourth gun related offense in just over a year. And the firearm 

defendant possessed in this case was a machine gun, which our supreme court has recognized 

belongs to “a category of dangerous and unusual weapons that are not typically possessed by lawabiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Wilson v. County of Cook, 2012 IL 112026, ¶ 46 (internal 

quotations omitted); see also People v. Ross, 229 Ill. 2d 255, 275 (2008) (explaining that “loaded 

guns” are part of a category of weapons that are “dangerous per se”). Finally, the record indicates 

that defendant was on probation at the time that he was found in possession of the firearm in this 

case. Based on analysis of the statutory factors under the circumstances here, we agree with the 

trial court’s conclusion that defendant poses a real and present safety threat. 

¶ 26 Finally, defendant argues that the State did not meet its burden of proving by clear and 

convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate that threat, based 

on the specific articulable facts of the case. Defendant’s only specific argument on this point, 

however, is that he does not have “any charges for escape in his history.” 

¶ 27 The trial court here specifically considered and rejected defendant’s argument that 

electronic home monitoring and pretrial services monitoring would mitigate the real and present 

threat he posed to the community. The court found the nature and circumstances of the offense 

“very troubling,” and that electronic monitoring was insufficient to mitigate the safety threat posed 

by defendant based on his three prior armed robbery adjudications and “the type of weapon that 

the defendant [chose] to arm himself with” during this offense. Additionally, and as stated above, 
No. 1-24-0768B 

14 

the record shows that defendant was on probation at the time of this offense. Defendant’s 

demonstrated history of failing to abide by prior conditions placed upon him, by possessing a 

weapon while he was prohibited from doing so, further suggests that continued detention is

necessary to avoid the safety risk posed by defendant. See People v. Lee, 2024 IL App (1st) 

232137, ¶ 33. Based on the evidence in the record, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that 

no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the safety threat posed by defendant, and 

that pretrial detention was necessary.

¶ 28 For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the trial court’s decision to grant the State’s 

petition for pretrial detention, and we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County. 

¶ 29 Affirmed.