Court Opinion

ID: 9962172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 21:03:46.458899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:57.734819
License: Public Domain

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).

                                         2024 IL App (3d) 240049-U

                                  Order filed April 22, 2024
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                    IN THE

                                    APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                              THIRD DISTRICT

                                                     2024

      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF                        )       Appeal from the Circuit Court
      ILLINOIS,                                         )       of the 12th Judicial Circuit,
                                                        )       Will County, Illinois,
             Plaintiff-Appellee,                        )
                                                        )       Appeal No. 3-24-0049
             v.                                         )       Circuit No. 23-CF-2007
                                                        )
      JAMES L. DAVIS, JR.,                              )       Honorable
                                                        )       Carmen Goodman,
             Defendant-Appellant.                       )       Judge, Presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

            JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the judgment of the court.
            Justice Albrecht concurred in the judgment.
            Presiding Justice McDade dissented.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                  ORDER

¶1          Held:   The trial court’s decision to continue to detain defendant was not an abuse of
                    discretion.

¶2          On January 10, 2024, the trial court determined that the continued detention of defendant,

     James L. Davis, Jr., was necessary to avoid a real and present threat to the safety of any person or

     persons in the community. Defendant appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶3                                          I. BACKGROUND
¶4          Defendant was charged on November 2, 2023, with three counts of unlawful possession of

     a weapon by a felon (Class 2) (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a), (e) (West 2022)) and obstructing justice

     (Class 4) (id. § 31-4(a)(1), (b)(1)). The State filed a verified petition to deny pretrial release,

     alleging defendant was charged with a nonprobationable felony, and his release posed a real and

     present threat to the safety of any person, persons, or the community under section 110-6.1(a)(1)

     of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1) (West 2022)).

¶5          The factual basis provided that at 11:27 p.m. on October 31, 2023, an officer was on patrol

     and saw a PT cruiser that was wanted for aggravated fleeing and eluding. The officer followed the

     vehicle, saw it park, and three individuals exited the vehicle. The officer activated the police lights.

     Two of the subjects stopped, but defendant took off running toward a residence. The officer

     followed him, made it to the front door, and the door slammed and locked. The officer forced the

     door open and heard defendant running down the stairs towards the basement. The officer gave

     chase and announced, “Police, you’re under arrest.” The officer went to the basement, heard a door

     slam shut, and heard furniture being moved around. As the officer approached the door, defendant

     exited, was out of breath, and indicated that he did not know it was the police chasing him.

     Defendant had live ammunition in his pocket. A backpack was located in the room defendant

     exited. The backpack had a loaded semi-automatic pistol with an extended magazine and an extra,

     loaded extended magazine. Defendant did not live at the residence. The officer spoke with the

     resident who said she did not have a semi-automatic handgun and had no knowledge of one being

     in the residence. Defendant made spontaneous statements that the gun was his, someone killed his

     brother, and he needed a gun for protection. Defendant made a phone call and indicated to the

     person that he was caught with his “stick.”

                                                        2
¶6            Defendant was on bond for unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon from August 24,

       2023. He had an active failure to appear warrant for his arrest for a missed court date. His criminal

       history included reckless discharge of a firearm, unlawful possession of a stolen firearm, three

       convictions for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, aggravated battery, domestic battery, and

       resisting a peace officer. A pretrial risk assessment indicated that he was a Level 4 risk.

¶7            The record indicates that a hearing was held on November 2, 2023, after which the court

       granted the State’s petition. Defendant did not appeal. His detention was revisited multiple times,

       and defendant did not appeal.

¶8            A hearing was held on January 10, 2024, to revisit defendant’s detention, which is the

       subject of this appeal. Defense counsel stated that there was “mitigation” evidence to support that

       defendant should be released, including that he was a member of a church, was licensed in real

       estate, and worked six to seven days a week at the church. He could return to his job at Waltshire,

       where he had worked for two years. He was also a music producer where he had been employed

       for the last nine years. He did not do drugs or drink alcohol. He had four children. Defense counsel

       said that the mitigation evidence was based on representations from defendant and had not been

       verified. Defense counsel asked that defendant be placed on GPS monitoring. The State provided

       the factual basis. The court found that continued detention was necessary. In doing so, it noted that

       defendant was on bond at the time and noted that he possessed a firearm. This appeal followed.

¶9                                               II. ANALYSIS

¶ 10          On appeal, defendant argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and

       convincing evidence that defendant did not pose a threat that could not be mitigated by conditions

       of release. We consider factual findings for the manifest weight of the evidence, but the ultimate

       decision to grant or deny the State’s petition to detain is considered for an abuse of discretion.

                                                         3
       People v. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. Under either standard, we consider whether

       the court’s determination is arbitrary or unreasonable. Id.; see also People v. Horne, 2023 IL App

       (2d) 230382, ¶ 19.

¶ 11           Everyone charged with an offense is eligible for pretrial release, which may only be denied

       in certain situations. 725 ILCS 5/110-2(a), 110-6.1 (West 2022). The State must file a verified

       petition requesting the denial of pretrial release. Id. § 110-6.1. The State then has the burden of

       proving by clear and convincing evidence (1) the proof is evident or presumption great that

       defendant committed a detainable offense, (2) defendant poses a real and present threat to any

       person, persons, or the community or is a flight risk, and (3) no conditions could mitigate this

       threat or risk of flight. Id. § 110-6.1(a), (e).

¶ 12           At the outset, we note that defendant had multiple prior detention hearings from which he

       did not appeal. As we stated in People v. Casey, 2024 IL App (3d) 230568, ¶ 13,

               “The requirement that the State prove by clear and convincing evidence each of the three

               above-mentioned propositions and that the court make a finding as to each, applies to this

               initial hearing. See id. § 110-6.1. For subsequent hearings, as the one at issue here, the

               statute only requires the court to find that ‘continued detention is necessary to 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, or to prevent the defendant's willful flight from

               prosecution.’ Id. § 110-6.1(i-5). Although this determination necessarily entails

               consideration of the threat or flight risk posed by a defendant and the potential mitigation

               of such threat or flight risk by conditions of release, the Code does not require the court to

               again make specific findings that the State proved the three propositions by clear and

               convincing evidence as required at the initial hearing.”

                                                          4
¶ 13          Therefore, we do not consider the propriety of the findings at the initial hearing; rather, we

       review only the trial court’s subsequent determination that “continued detention is necessary to

       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, or to prevent the defendant’s willful flight from

       prosecution.” Id.

¶ 14          Here, the proffer indicated that defendant was a convicted felon, was on bond, and had a

       warrant out for his arrest at the time of the offense. Despite these facts, defendant possessed a

       weapon and ammunition. Under these facts, we cannot say the court’s decision to continue to

       detain defendant was an abuse of discretion.

¶ 15                                            III. CONCLUSION

¶ 16          The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.

¶ 17          Affirmed.

¶ 18          PRESIDING JUSTICE McDADE, dissenting:

¶ 19          I dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm the circuit court’s denial of pretrial release

       for this defendant.

¶ 20          Relevant to the determination of dangerousness under section 110-6.1(e)(2) of the statute,

       defendant is being charged in this case with three counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a

       felon, and the circuit court arrived at its January 10, 2024, detention order based partly on its

       finding that defendant is known to possess or have access to firearms. Neither federal nor Illinois

       law completely bans the personal possession of firearms across all circumstances. See U.S. Const.,

       amend. II; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 22. Section 24-1.1(a) of the Illinois Criminal Code criminalizes

       the possession of any firearm or firearm ammunition by a person who has been convicted of a

       felony, (see 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2022)), as defendant is alleged to have been in this case.

                                                         5
       However, it is unclear what real and present threat of danger defendant poses to specific persons

       or to the community by merely possessing a firearm or firearm ammunition.

¶ 21          The circuit court’s detention order is further based on its finding that defendant’s criminal

       history is indicative of violent, abusive, or assaultive behavior. As the majority notes, the weapons-

       related offenses in defendant’s criminal history include reckless discharge of a firearm, unlawful

       possession of a stolen firearm, and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. Relevant to unlawful

       possession of a stolen firearm, as stated above, it remains unclear how the mere possession of a

       firearm amounts to the state of danger contemplated under section 110-6.1(e)(2) of the statute. Nor

       does defendant’s history of reckless discharge of a firearm or unlawful use of a weapon by a felon

       amount to the same.

¶ 22          Because the State has not proven defendant’s alleged dangerousness that rises to the level

       of the clear and present threat contemplated by the statute, it cannot be said that there are no

       conditions that can mitigate the threat that he poses to certain persons or the community.

       Consequently, I find that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying defendant pretrial

       release, and would reverse its judgment.

                                                         6