Court Opinion

ID: 9905697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 21:04:36.582149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:50.434774
License: Public Domain

NOTICE                2023 IL App (4th) 230865-U
 This Order was filed under
                                                                                    FILED
 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is                                                 November 29, 2023
                                          NO. 4-23-0865
 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.                                                 )      Henry County
STEVEN D. WALKER,                                             )      No. 23CF292
           Defendant-Appellant.                               )
                                                              )      Honorable
                                                              )      Colby G. Hathaway,
                                                              )      Judge Presiding.

                JUSTICE LANNERD delivered the judgment of the court.
                Presiding Justice DeArmond and Justice Knecht concurred in the judgment.

                                              ORDER

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

¶2              On September 21, 2023, the Henry County circuit court entered an order detaining

defendant, Steven D. Walker, pursuant to the dangerousness standard found in section 110-6.1 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Procedure Code) as amended by Public Acts 101-652,

§ 10-255 and 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023) (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)), commonly

known as the Pretrial Fairness Act. Defendant appeals, arguing this court should overturn the

circuit court’s decision because (1) the State failed to prove he poses a real and present threat to

the safety of any person or persons or the community and (2) the court erred in determining no

condition or combination of conditions would reasonably ensure his appearance for a later hearing

or prevent him from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. We affirm

the circuit court’s decision denying defendant pretrial release.
¶3                                      I. BACKGROUND

¶4             On September 20, 2023, the State charged defendant by information with violation

of an order of protection (720 ILCS 5/12-3.4(a)(1) (West 2022)) and driving while license revoked

(625 ILCS 5/6-303(a), (d-3) (West 2022)). According to the charging instrument, defendant was

served with an order of protection in Henry County case No. 23-OP-152, under which H.P. was a

protected party, and then knowingly violated the order of protection by having contact with H.P.

The information also alleged defendant had previously been convicted of domestic battery in

Henry County case No. 11-CM-513.

¶5             The State filed a verified petition to deny defendant pretrial release on September

20, 2023. The State indicated defendant was charged with violating an order of protection and his

pretrial release posed a real and present threat to the safety of a person or persons or the community

(725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(3) (West 2022)). The State’s petition provided the following factual basis

to support detaining defendant. A police officer conducting a traffic stop identified defendant as

the driver of the vehicle he stopped and H.P. as a passenger. Defendant was driving the vehicle on

a revoked driver’s license, which he had done on at least four prior occasions. According to the

State’s petition, when the order of protection was served on defendant, defendant said he would

have his sister “beat up” H.P. when the order of protection expired.

¶6             At the detention hearing on September 20, 2023, the State provided the circuit court

with information consistent with the verified petition to deny defendant pretrial release. In

addition, the State indicated defendant had a pending battery charge in Henry County and a 2018

conviction for aggravated battery in a public place. The State argued the information before the

court showed defendant was not concerned with the law and would not comply with the law. The

State also indicated it was concerned defendant would not appear at upcoming court dates because

                                                -2-
he did not have a driver’s license.

¶7             In addition, according to the State’s proffer, when the arresting officer stopped

defendant for the traffic violation, defendant failed to correctly identify himself, did not comply

with the officer’s commands, and exhibited furtive movements throughout the stop. After the

officer removed defendant from the vehicle, defendant put his hand behind his back and began

reaching toward his waistline until the officer “went hands-on with him and told him to stop.” The

officer later identified H.P. as the passenger in the vehicle. After confirming defendant’s identity,

the officer confirmed that defendant’s driver’s license was revoked. The State also indicated

defendant had been served with the order of protection on September 7, 2023.

¶8             Defense counsel argued defendant had reliable transportation from his “Grandma

Annie” and the Henry County public transportation system to get to court. Further, defense counsel

noted defendant’s sister had not harmed H.P. and was not an immediate threat to her. According

to defense counsel, if the court established conditions requiring defendant to not have contact with

H.P., the court could mitigate any threat defendant posed to H.P. Defense counsel also argued

defendant was not with H.P. but was just driving H.P.’s car. Finally, defense counsel argued the

State had not proffered any evidence H.P. had been harmed at any time.

¶9             The circuit court indicated it had considered the proffered evidence, the pretrial

investigation report, defendant’s criminal history, and defendant’s score of “8” out of 14 on the

Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment. The court also noted defendant had been found with H.P., who

was the protected party in the active order of protection. In addition, the court noted defendant had

a history of violence, including prior convictions for domestic battery and attempt aggravated

battery. Defendant was also out on bond for a battery charge. With regard to possible conditions it

could impose on defendant to mitigate his dangerous behavior, the court stated the condition it

                                                -3-
would like to impose, which would be to require defendant not to have contact with H.P., would

be futile based on defendant’s history. As a result, the court found the risk to H.P. could not be

mitigated by conditions imposed on defendant.

¶ 10            In the circuit court’s written order, it found the State charged defendant with a

detention-eligible offense and the proof was evident or the presumption great that defendant had

committed the detention-eligible offense. The court also found the State presented clear and

convincing evidence defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person or

persons or the community based on the specific articulable facts of this case and no condition or

combination of conditions could mitigate the real and present threat defendant’s release would

cause. Pursuant to section 110-6.1(h)(1) of the Procedure Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West

2022)), the court found less restrictive conditions could not assure H.P.’s safety because of

defendant’s history of disregarding court orders. As additional reasons for denying defendant

pretrial release, the court pointed to defendant’s prior convictions for violent offenses, a pending

battery charge, and his significant criminal record.

¶ 11            On September 22, 2023, defense counsel filed a timely notice of appeal pursuant to

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(2) (eff. Sep. 18, 2023). The circuit court appointed the Office

of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD) to represent defendant on appeal.

¶ 12                                      II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13            According to defendant’s amended notice of appeal, the State failed to meet its

burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that defendant posed a real and present threat

to the safety of any person or persons or the community based on the facts in this case. According

to defendant:

                       “The Defendant was served a short-form notice of the [order of protection

                                                -4-
               ] on 9/7/2023. At which time he stated he would have his sister ‘beat up’ the object

               of the OP when the OP was over. Defendant was pulled over while driving the

               vehicle of the object of the OP in a location not near either of their residences. At

               the time of the stop and arrest there was no indication that any harm had come to

               the object of the OP. At no point between the issuance of the OP and the present

               has the Defendant’s sister approached or caused harm to the object of the OP.”

¶ 14           Defendant also argued the circuit court erred by determining no condition or

combination of conditions would reasonably ensure defendant’s appearance for later court

hearings or prevent him from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor.

Defendant’s explanation as to how the circuit court erred is limited to the following sentence:

“Defendant would be subject to incarceration if he were to violate the OP or a pre-trial release

condition.”

¶ 15           On October 20, 2023, OSAD filed a notice with this court indicating it was not

filing a Rule 604(h) memorandum. As a result, we examine the arguments presented in defendant’s

amended notice of appeal.

¶ 16           When reviewing a circuit court’s pretrial detention decision, we apply an abuse of

discretion standard of review. People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11. A circuit court

abuses its discretion when its decision is “arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable, or where no

reasonable person would agree with the position adopted by the [circuit] court.” (Internal quotation

marks omitted.) Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 10.

¶ 17           Based on the facts in this case, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in

denying defendant pretrial release. Defendant ignores the proffered fact he was with H.P. when he

was arrested in this case after having been served with an order of protection for H.P. Based on

                                               -5-
defendant’s history of violence and the fact one of his current charges was for violating an order

of protection, defendant’s arguments the circuit court abused its discretion by denying defendant

pretrial release because he was not a threat and because the court could have imposed conditions

to mitigate the threat are meritless.

¶ 18                                    III. CONCLUSION

¶ 19            For the reasons stated, we affirm the Henry County circuit court’s judgment and

remand the case for further proceedings.

¶ 20            Affirmed; cause remanded.

                                              -6-