Court Opinion

ID: 9926188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-23 23:03:34.494948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:08.873560
License: Public Domain

NOTICE                   2024 IL App (4th) 231278-U
This Order was filed under
                                                                                    FILED
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is                                                     January 23, 2024
                                   NOS. 4-23-1278, 4-23-1279 cons.
not precedent except in the                                                        Carla Bender
limited circumstances allowed                                                  4th District Appellate
under Rule 23(e)(1).
                                    IN THE APPELLATE COURT                           Court, IL

                                             OF ILLINOIS

                                         FOURTH DISTRICT

 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                           )     Appeal from the
             Plaintiff-Appellee,                                )     Circuit Court of
             v.                                                 )     Knox County
 PATRICK N. SNYDER,                                             )     Nos. 23CF547
             Defendant-Appellant.                               )          23CF554
                                                                )
                                                                )     Honorable
                                                                )     James Standard,
                                                                )     Judge Presiding.

                  JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court.
                  Justices Zenoff and DeArmond concurred in the judgment.

                                               ORDER

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

 ¶2               Defendant, Patrick N. Snyder, appeals the trial court’s order denying his pretrial

 release under section 110-6.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS

 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)), as amended by Public Acts 101-652, § 10-255 and 102-1104, § 70 (eff.

 Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as the Pretrial Fairness Act. We affirm.

 ¶3                                       I. BACKGROUND

 ¶4               This appeal involves two Knox County cases consolidated on appeal. In Knox

 County case No. 23-CF-547, on October 24, 2023, the State charged defendant with knowingly

 engaging in the September 25, 2023, delivery of more than 100 grams but less than 400 grams of
a substance containing methamphetamine, a Class X felony (720 ILCS 646/55(a)(1), (2)(D)

(West 2022)). In Knox County case No. 23-CF-554, the State charged defendant with knowingly

possessing with intent to deliver more than 15 but less than 100 grams of a substance containing

methamphetamine, a Class X felony (id. § 55(a)(1), (2)(C)) and unlawful possession of a

controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 2022)).

¶5             On October 26, 2023, the State filed a verified petition to deny defendant pretrial

release in both Knox County cases. In both petitions, the State sought detention of defendant

based on section 110-6.1(a)(1) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1) (West 2022)), alleging he

committed a felony offense for which a sentence of imprisonment without probation is required

by law and his pretrial release poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or

community. In Knox County case No. 23-CF-547, the State alleged the following additional

grounds supporting its petition:

                       “The Defendant is currently charged in relation to a

               controlled buy of a substantial amount of suspected

               methamphetamine conducted by an undercover agent. Not long

               before the incident which led to the current charges, the Defendant

               sold approximately one ounce (~28 grams) of suspected

               methamphetamine to an undercover agent. And not long after the

               incident which led to the current charges, the Defendant personally

               told the undercover agent that he could secure a pound of

               methamphetamine.

                       A search warrant was sought and obtained for the residence

               of [defendant] and law enforcement planned to execute same at the

                                                -2-
              time [defendant] sold the pound of methamphetamine to the

              undercover agent. [Defendant] ended up backing out of the buy,

              telling the agent he hadn’t been able to get the meth from his

              dealer. As a result, execution of the search warrant did not occur.

                     Upon execution of the arrest of [defendant], illegal drugs

              and paraphernalia were observed in plain view, which led to a new

              search warrant for the residence of [defendant]. In [defendant’s]

              residence an additional amount of methamphetamine was found,

              nearly two ounces (~57 grams), along with drug paraphernalia and

              evidence of the sale of drugs, including drug scales and a vacuum

              sealer commonly utilized when packaging illegal drugs for sale.

                     It appears that [defendant’s] main source of income is the

              illegal sale of narcotics. An ounce of meth has a street value of

              anywhere from $250 to $350 or more, depending on the source.

              One gram of meth contains from one to four doses, so an ounce of

              methamphetamine (approximately 28 grams) has from 28 to 112

              doses, more or less depending on the particular user. Illegal drugs

              such as methamphetamine contain any number of cutting agents

              including fentanyl, which is known to be highly dangerous to those

              who ingest it. The sale of illegal narcotics on the scale [defendant]

              was selling drugs poses a real and present threat to the safety of the

              community.”

The factual summary provided in the verified petition in Knox County case No. 23-CF-554 is

                                              -3-
substantially similar.

¶6             On October 26, 2023, a hearing was held on the State’s petitions. The State’s

proffer included the charges as well as the additional grounds set forth in both petitions. The

State also emphasized there was no evidence defendant had lawful employment and his

“financial infrastructure” was built on the sale of drugs. The State concluded defendant was a

real and present threat to the community and, given his financial dependence on the sale of

illegal drugs, an order directing him not to participate in that activity and directing him to report

to pretrial services would not mitigate that threat.

¶7             Defense counsel argued defendant did not pose a real and present threat to the

community’s safety. Counsel highlighted the absence of evidence of firearms or of criminal acts

before September 25, 2023. Defense counsel proposed if the trial court found defendant posed

such a threat, that threat could be mitigated by pretrial supervision, home detention, and drug

testing, to which defendant did not object.

¶8             In denying defendant pretrial release, the trial court found the following:

                         “Considering what has been represented here to be the

               magnitude of a sweep of [defendant’s] dissemination of controlled

               substances, I think this situation casts a different light here, and I

               don’t know how many customers [defendant] may have either

               directly or indirectly by sales to someone who then turns around

               and moves some of that product down the line. I don’t know. And

               I’m not inquiring now. I’m just observing here. And that—I think

               the Court on the basis of the proffer can find that the conduct

               engaged in by the defendant here, the defendant does pose a real

                                                 -4-
               threat, and I think by clear and convincing evidence that’s been

               demonstrated. I don’t find that conditions, limitations on pretrial

               release would be sufficient to protect the public or individuals from

               possible harm. So I’m going to—and I’ve considered all the

               evidence that’s been proffered here. So I’m going to grant the

               petition to deny pretrial release.”

By written order, the court checked a box showing it found by clear and convincing evidence

“the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant has committed a qualifying

offense listed in paragraphs (1) through (7) of 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a),” “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 “no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate the

real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons.”

¶9             This appeal followed.

¶ 10                                       II. ANALYSIS

¶ 11           On November 9, 2023, defendant filed a notice of appeal challenging the order

denying him pretrial release (but no memorandum) under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)

(eff. Oct. 19, 2023). Defendant’s notice of appeal is a completed form from the Article VI Forms

Appendix to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules (see Ill. S. Ct. R. 606(d) (eff. Oct. 19, 2023)), by

which he asks this court to reverse the order denying pretrial release and remand for the setting

of pretrial-release conditions. The form lists several possible grounds for appellate relief and

directs appellants to “check all that apply and describe in detail.”

¶ 12           In his notice of appeal, defendant checked three grounds for relief. The first

ground defendant alleged is the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and

                                                -5-
convincing evidence he poses a real and present threat to the safety of the community based on

the specific articulable facts of the case. On the lines beneath the preprinted text, defendant

added the following:

                       “Aside from a DUI in 2003 and 2011, the defendant has no

               criminal history apart from a few minor traffic offenses. No

               evidence to indicate any violent, abusive or assaultive behavior.

               Both the gun and any drugs located in the home were taken as a

               result of this arrest and are no longer within the control of

               [defendant].”

¶ 13           Under the Code, criminal defendants are presumed eligible for pretrial release.

725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e) (West Supp. 2023). To deny defendant pretrial release under the

dangerousness standard, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence “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 “no condition or combination of conditions set forth

in subsection (b) of Section 110-10 of this Article can mitigate (i) the real and present threat to

the safety of any person or persons or the community.” Id. § 110-6.1(a)(7), (e)(2)-(3).

¶ 14           The question of whether a defendant was properly denied pretrial release is

reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶¶ 10-11.

Under this standard, we will find an abuse of discretion when the decision regarding pretrial

release is unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful or when we find no reasonable person would agree

with the court’s decision. Id. ¶ 10. The abuse-of-discretion standard does not allow this court to

substitute our judgment for the trial court’s judgment simply because we would have evaluated

the evidence differently. See id. ¶ 11.

                                                -6-
¶ 15           When the State seeks pretrial detention based on the dangerousness standard, the

trial court may consider the following factors:

                         “(1) The nature and circumstances of any offense charged,

               including whether the offense is a crime of violence, involving a

               weapon, or a sex offense.

                         (2) The history and characteristics of the defendant

               including:

                         (A) Any evidence of the defendant’s prior criminal history

               indicative of violent, abusive or assaultive behavior, or lack of

               such behavior. ***

                         (B) Any evidence of the defendant’s psychological,

               psychiatric or other similar social history which tends to indicate a

               violent, abusive, or assaultive nature, or lack of any such history.

                         (3) The identity of any person or persons to whose safety

               the defendant is believed to pose a threat, and the nature of the

               threat.

                         (4) Any statements made by, or attributed to the defendant,

               together with the circumstances surrounding them.

                         (5) The age and physical condition of the defendant.

                         (6) The age and physical condition of any victim or

               complaining witness.

                         (7) Whether the defendant is known to possess or have

               access to any weapon or weapons.

                                                  -7-
                      (8) Whether, at the time of the current offense or any other

               offense or arrest, the defendant was on probation, parole, aftercare

               release, mandatory supervised release or other release ***.

                      (9) Any other factors *** deemed by the court to have a

               reasonable bearing upon the defendant’s propensity or reputation

               for violent, abusive, or assaultive behavior, or lack of such

               behavior.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g) (West Supp. 2023).

¶ 16           Here, we find no abuse of discretion. The record demonstrates the trial court

considered the proffer, the nature of the offenses, and counsels’ arguments, even asking a

clarifying question during defense counsel’s argument. The court emphasized the magnitude of

defendant’s drug offenses and their effect on the community. Given not only the charges

involving large quantities of methamphetamine but also defendant’s assertion he had access to

even greater quantities and the absence of any indication he had an alternate source of income,

the court’s decision finding him dangerous is not arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable or one with

which no reasonable person would agree. See Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 10.

¶ 17           We note, even though the notice of appeal refers to a “gun,” neither the charges

against defendant nor the proffers or argument at the hearing refer to a gun found in his

possession.

¶ 18           Defendant’s second ground for relief is the State failed to meet its burden of

proving by clear and convincing evidence no condition or combination of conditions can

mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community.

Under the preprinted text, defendant wrote the following:

                      “Conditions that he not possess illegal narcotics, weapons

                                               -8-
                and submit to drug testing would be sufficient to protect the

                community. The defendant was willing to remain under house

                arrest to ensure he would not have access to any firearms or

                narcotics. The defendant was also willing to report to pretrial

                services to ensure the safety of the community.”

¶ 19            We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination no condition or

combination of conditions can mitigate defendant’s threat to the community. The court was

under no obligation to believe defendant would comply with any imposed conditions. A large

quantity of methamphetamine was found in the home where defendant wished to be confined.

Defendant had access to large quantities of methamphetamine and no source of income to

maintain his lifestyle other than through the sale of illegal drugs. The court’s conclusion

defendant’s dangerousness to the community could not be mitigated is not fanciful, arbitrary, or

unreasonable.

¶ 20            Defendant’s third alleged ground for relief followed a checked box for “Other.”

Defendant alleged the following: “The court erred in finding that the State’s Petition to Detain

complies with 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(d)(1). Allegations in the State’s Petition lacked specificity as

to why the case met the dangerous standard, was general in nature and not individualized for the

case.”

¶ 21            Section 110-6.1(d)(1) sets forth the requirements for a petition to deny pretrial

release. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(d)(1) (West Supp. 2023). For petitions seeking denial of pretrial

release under the dangerousness standard, petitions “shall be verified by the State and shall state

the grounds upon which it contends the defendant should be denied pretrial release, including the

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

                                                -9-
specific articulable facts.” Id.

¶ 22            The petitions filed by the State satisfy section 110-6.1(d)(1). Contrary to

defendant’s contention in his notice of appeal, each petition contains a summary of the facts of

both Knox County cases and describes defendant’s financial circumstances. Each petition also

summarizes the street value of methamphetamine and demonstrates how many doses defendant

intended to disperse into the community.

¶ 23                                    III. CONCLUSION

¶ 24            For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 25            Affirmed.

                                                - 10 -