Court Opinion

ID: 9917292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 21:03:32.801288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:11.910712
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (1st) 232015-U
                                                                                      Fourth Division
                                                                               Filed January 11, 2024
                                           No. 1-23-2015B

         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 DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                    Appeal from the
       Plaintiff-Appellee,                              Circuit Court of Cook County

  v.                                                    No. 23 CR 08573

STEVE CECIL,                                            Honorable Shelley Sutker-Dermer,
       Defendant-Appellant.                             Judge, presiding.

         JUSTICE OCASIO III delivered the judgment of the court.
         Presiding Justice Rochford and Justice Martin concurred in the judgment.

                                               ORDER

¶1      Held:    We affirm the circuit court’s order granting the State’s petition for pretrial
                 detention.
¶2       Defendant, Steve Cecil (Cecil), appeals the circuit court’s order granting the State’s petition

for pretrial detention under article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code). 725

ILCS 5/art. 110 (West Supp. 2023). For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶3                                        BACKGROUND

¶4       On July 9, 2023, Cecil was arrested and charged with unlawful use or possession of a

weapon by a felon and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. At that time, the circuit court ordered

Cecil to be held until he could post the bond of $50,000 “D,” meaning he would need to post

$5,000 to be released.
People v. Cecil                                                                    No. 1-23-2015B
                                                                        2024 IL App (1st) 232015-U

¶5     On October 16, 2023, after the supreme court lifted the stay of pretrial release provisions

in Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, Cecil orally requested pretrial release pursuant to Section 110-2

of the Code. The State filed a verified petition for a pretrial detention hearing pursuant to sections

110-2 and 110-6.1 of the Code.

¶6     At Cecil’s detention hearing, the State proffered the facts of the underlying offense:

                   “[T]he defendant was observed walking with a shotgun by two
               witnesses in the area of 4409 West Montana Street, and this occurred
               on July 9th of 2023 at approximately 12:26 a.m. The witnesses
               observed the defendant place it under a vehicle. Officers of the
               Chicago Police Department were called to that area. They recovered
               a 12-guage shotgun where the witnesses had observed the defendant
               place it. When they stopped the defendant and searched him, they
               recovered a 12-guage shotgun shell in his pocket.”
The police report in the record describes the firearm as a “Springfield, H67, pump action shotgun

with 12 inch barrel.” The State described Cecil’s criminal history:

                   “He has a 2018 aggravated battery public place, Class 3, he
               received four years IDOC; in 2011 a Class 4 PCS, one-year IDOC;
               a 2007 Class 4 PCS, one-year IDOC; a 2006 Class 4 PCS, 18 months
               IDOC; a 2005 aggravated 6-303, it was a Class 4, one-year probation
               and a 1998 manufacture/delivery of a controlled substance, six-
               years IDOC.”
The State indicated Cecil’s Public Safety Assessment stated Cecil’s “[n]ew criminal activity is a

four and failure to appear three.” See 725 ILCS 5/110-6.4 (West Supp. 2023) (providing that the

court may utilize statewide risk assessment tools in evaluating the likelihood of a defendant’s

appearances at future proceedings or if defendant poses a real and present threat). The State further

alerted the circuit court that Cecil was on probation for a conviction of aggravated fleeing and

eluding at the time of this offense. Cecil was being held no bail for a violation of that probation,

which was pending in another courthouse. The State described the facts underlying that prior

conviction:

                   “[T]he facts are that on September 21st of 2020 defendant was
               the driver of a white 1996 Pontiac Grand Prix. He had a passenger
               in the vehicle with him. Officers observed the vehicle turning

                                                 -2-
People v. Cecil                                                                    No. 1-23-2015B
                                                                        2024 IL App (1st) 232015-U

               without signaling, this happened in Franklin Park. They activated
               emergency equipment and curbed the vehicle. Officers were in full
               uniform. They approached and observed the defendant in the
               driver’s seat. They engaged the defendant in a conversation. He
               would not comply with their command, and he then told the officers
               bye and put the car in drive and drove off. Officers pursued in their
               vehicle. They drove down Mannheim traveling 83 miles an hour in
               a forty-mile-an-hour zone. He made an improper U turn on
               Mannheim then proceeding south and weaving between lanes. He
               drove into oncoming traffic and ran a red light at Belmont. He then
               was traveling—he was observed to be traveling at 76 miles per hour
               in a 35-mile-per-hour zone. His vehicle began to spark and smoke.
               The officers were able to surround his vehicle and attempted to get
               him to pull over. He then sped up and rear ended squad car causing
               rear-end damage. He then turned his car into a second squad car on
               the side of him causing damage to that vehicle as well. This crash
               disabled the defendant’s vehicle.

                   Officers had both occupants exit. His passenger was placed into
               custody for a gun charge. They had to reach in the car and pull the
               defendant out. Once he was out, he refused to listen to verbal
               commands and resisted arrest. He would not put his hands behind
               his back, and he stiffened up his body.

                   While taking him into custody, one of the officers hit his head
               on the ground, and he suffered pain to his head, dizziness and nausea
               and went to the hospital, and the two squad cars were damaged, one
               was no longer drivable.”
¶7     At the conclusion of the detention hearing, the circuit court granted the State’s petition for

pretrial detention and ruled as follows:

                   “[T]his Court finds that the proof is evident and the presumption
               – or the presumption is great the defendant committed the alleged
               offense of unlawful use of weapon by felon; that the defendant poses
               a real and present danger or threat to the safety of any person or
               persons in the community based on the facts of this case, which is
               the defendant was on the street with a shotgun and it was viewed by
               witnesses and later a bullet fitting that gun was recovered from the
               defendant, and as to whether any conditions can mitigate the real
               and present safety of any person or persons in the community, I will
               say that based on the facts in the fleeing and eluding and the fact that
               he has a violation of probation that is set at no bail on the former

                                                 -3-
People v. Cecil                                                                    No. 1-23-2015B
                                                                        2024 IL App (1st) 232015-U

                system that it would be—that the State has shown by clear and
                convincing evidence that the proof is evident, the presumption is
                great and no condition or conditions set can mitigate the defendant’s
                willful flight. So the defendant will be detained and remanded to the
                custody of the Cook County Sheriff’s pending the trial of this case.”
¶8     A written order reflecting the circuit court’s findings was entered the same day. In that

order, the circuit court found that the State had shown by clear and convincing evidence that the

proof was evident or the presumption is great that Cecil had committed an offense eligible for

detention, unlawful use of a weapon by a felon., he poses a real and present threat to the safety of

any person or persons or the community based on specific articulable facts of the case and no

condition or combination of conditions can mitigate the threat to safety posed by Cecil and mitigate

Cecil’s willful flight. Cecil timely appealed.

¶9                                          ANALYSIS

¶ 10   Under the newly amended provisions of article 110, “[a]ll persons charged with an offense

shall be eligible for pretrial release before conviction.” 725 ILCS 5/110-2(a) (West Supp. 2023).

In some circumstances, the court may detain a person accused of a crime if the State proves by

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

defendant has committed the underlying offense, (2) the defendant’s pretrial release poses a real

and present threat to the safety of the community, and (3) no condition or combination of

conditions could mitigate risk to safety to the community or the defendant’s willful flight. Id.

§ 110-6.1(e).

¶ 11   As for the standard of review, some courts have utilized the manifest weight of the evidence

standard. See People v. Rodriguez, 2023 Il App (3d) 230450, ¶ 8; People v. Stock, 2023 IL App

(1st) 231753, ¶ 12. Others have applied an abuse of discretion standard as that was the standard

utilized under the prior regime regarding bond hearings and appeals therefrom. See People v.

Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11; People v. Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253, ¶ 9. For

our purposes, under either standard, the result in this case is the same.

                                                 -4-
People v. Cecil                                                                    No. 1-23-2015B
                                                                        2024 IL App (1st) 232015-U

¶ 12   Cecil does not challenge that he has been charged with a detainable offense, and we agree.

725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1) (West Supp. 2023). Instead, he challenges whether the State has met its

burden, by clear and convincing evidence, that he poses a real and present threat to the safety of

any person, persons, or to the community, that no condition or combination of conditions would

mitigate the risk he poses, and rejects that either the proof is evident, or the presumption is great

that he committed the offense, based on the specific articulable facts of the case. 725 ILCS

5/110-6.1(e)(2), (3) (West Supp. 2023). Specifically, Cecil asserts that the State never alleged that

he poses a threat to anyone including the community and that the circuit court erred in finding he

violated the willful flight standard when the State did not allege willful flight.

¶ 13   Cecil argues that the two Class 2 felonies he is accused of are “purely status and licensure

violations,” suggesting that the safety standards have not been satisfied by the State. Cecil also

highlights the burden on the State is clear and convincing evidence. Finally, Cecil contends the

State’s failure to articulate its case under the Act required the circuit court to focus on what

conditions or combination of conditions might impose to mitigate any potential risk from Cecil’s

pretrial release. Notwithstanding, this Court will neither disturb nor substitute the trial court’s

factual and credibility findings with our own. People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11.

¶ 14   Here, in its oral and written rulings, the circuit court found the proof was evident and the

presumption was great that Cecil committed the unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. Further,

Cecil posed a real and present threat to the safety of the community as he was in the street with a

shotgun, was observed by two witnesses, and found with a shotgun shell on his person. The circuit

court properly concluded that no conditions would mitigate the threat to safety in that Cecil

committed the offense while on probation on a charge of aggravated fleeing and eluding the police.

The proffer as to that charge showed Cecil eluded the police during a high-speed car chase,

disregarded police directions and instructions, and jeopardized the safety of the public. While the

State neither alleged nor argued that Cecil was a flight risk, at the hearing the State proffered the

facts of Cecil’s aggravated fleeing and eluding case. The circuit court considered that facts of the

                                                 -5-
People v. Cecil                                                                   No. 1-23-2015B
                                                                       2024 IL App (1st) 232015-U

case and, most importantly, that fact that Cecil had violated the probation for that case in order to

determine that no set of conditions could mitigate Cecil’s willful flight. The record is clear that

there were sufficient facts to support the circuit court's conclusion that the State met its burden by

clear and convincing evidence.

¶ 15   Based on the foregoing reasons, we will not disturb the circuit court’s judgment.

¶ 16                                     CONCLUSION

¶ 17   For the reason stated above, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 18   Affirmed.

                                                 -6-