Court Opinion

ID: 9930467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 22:03:00.837714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:18:22.796394
License: Public Domain

NOTICE                       2024 IL App (4th) 231322-U
                                                                                  FILED
This Order was filed under
                                              NO. 4-23-1322                    February 6, 2024
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is                                                     Carla Bender
not precedent except in the                                                  4th District Appellate
limited circumstances allowed        IN THE APPELLATE COURT
                                                                                   Court, IL
under Rule 23(e)(1)
                                              OF ILLINOIS

                                          FOURTH DISTRICT

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                         )     Appeal from the
               Plaintiff-Appellee,                               )     Circuit Court of
               v.                                                )     Winnebago County
    DUSTIN PATRICK TRESTIK,                                      )     No. 23CF2714
               Defendant-Appellant.                              )
                                                                 )     Honorable
                                                                 )     Scott Paccagnini,
                                                                 )     Judge Presiding.

                    JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court.
                    Justices Cavanagh and Harris concurred in the judgment.

                                                 ORDER
  ¶1       Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion
                 in denying defendant pretrial release.

  ¶2                Defendant, Dustin Patrick Trestik, appeals the circuit court’s order denying him

  pretrial release pursuant to article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725

  ILCS 5/art. 110 (West 2022)), hereinafter as amended by Public Act 101-652, § 10-255 (eff. Jan.

  1, 2023), commonly known as the Pretrial Fairness Act (Act). See Pub. Act 102-1104, § 70 (eff.

  Jan. 1, 2023) (amending various provisions of the Act); Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 52

  (setting the Act’s effective date as September 18, 2023). On appeal, defendant argues the State

  failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions could mitigate the real and
present threat he posed to the safety of any person or the community based on the facts of the

case or prevent his willful flight. We affirm.

¶3                                      I. BACKGROUND

¶4             On November 15, 2023, the State charged defendant with aggravated domestic

battery with strangulation (720 ILCS 5/12-3.3(a-5) (West 2022)), domestic battery (720 ILCS

5/12-3.2(a)(1) (West 2022)), possessing a firearm without the requisite firearm owner’s

identification (FOID) card (430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1) (West 2022)), possessing ammunition without

the requisite FOID card (430 ILCS 65/2(a)(2) (West 2022)), and aggravated assault using a

firearm (720 ILCS 5/12-2(c)(1) (West 2022)).

¶5             On November 16, 2023, the State filed a petition to deny pretrial release, and the

circuit court conducted a detention hearing. Defendant conceded he was charged with a

detainable offense. The State’s proffer relied on the officers’ factual summary and the pretrial

services report. According to the factual summary, officers responded to a physical altercation at

a hotel between defendant and his girlfriend, Amanda Allen. Allen told officers defendant

“punched her two to three times in the face” and “took both of his hands and placed them around

her neck for 30-45 seconds,” making her feel lightheaded. Defendant removed a handgun in a

holster from his pants and, while his hand was on the holster, he said, “ ‘I should put one through

you.’ ” Defendant later placed his forearm against Allen’s neck and applied pressure for

approximately one minute. When Allen said she could not breath, defendant responded, “ ‘You

are not supposed to.’ ” To escape, Allen ran out of the room and jumped off a second floor

balcony.

¶6             Officers observed swelling and bruising on Allen’s face and neck. Allen told

officers defendant was “physical” with her three or four times in the past. Officers detected “a

                                                 -2-
strong odor of an alcoholic beverage” coming from defendant’s mouth, and his eyes were

bloodshot and glassy. Officers searched the hotel suite and found three handguns.

¶7             The pretrial services report showed defendant was a “Moderate/High Risk” on the

pretrial risk assessment tool. Defendant scored a 15 on the Domestic Violence Screening

Instrument (DVSI), which fell within the “high risk” range. Defendant’s criminal history

included a conviction for domestic battery causing bodily harm in 2002. In 2012, defendant was

arrested and charged with domestic battery and knowingly damaging property, but he was only

convicted of the latter charge. In 2022, defendant received probation for a firearm-related offense

in Pueblo County, Colorado, and he was still on probation when the altercation at issue occurred.

According to his probation officer, defendant had not reported to her since his release. A warrant

had been issued for defendant on November 9, 2022, for failure to comply with his probation

conditions.

¶8             The State described several of these allegations as “red flags,” including

defendant’s access to deadly weapons, his purported alcohol abuse, and that he purportedly

strangled Allen twice during the altercation. The State emphasized Allen “thought she was going

to die,” and “she jumped off the second floor balcony [of the hotel] into the lobby area to get

away from this defendant.” Further, defendant “had become physical” with Allen multiple times

in the past, and defendant was on probation due to a conviction in another state when the

altercation occurred.

¶9             Defendant argued his only domestic violence conviction took place over 20 years

ago, and Allen’s primary residence was in another state. Conversely, defendant was

self-employed in Illinois, and he had family nearby. Defendant insisted there was not “enough

information to conclude that [he] would not abide by Court conditions if they were to be

                                               -3-
imposed.” Defendant asserted a no contact order would sufficiently mitigate the threat he posed

to Allen’s safety.

¶ 10           The circuit court granted the State’s petition, finding the State proved by clear and

convincing evidence the proof was evident or the presumption great that defendant committed a

qualifying offense, he posed a real and present threat to the safety of his alleged victim and the

community, and no conditions would ensure the safety of his alleged victim or the community.

In making its decision, the court observed defendant allegedly punched Allen and strangled her

twice, causing her to feel lightheaded. The court noted defendant “allegedly placed his hand on

his holster containing a firearm and told the alleged victim, [‘]I should put one through you.[’] ”

When officers searched the hotel room where the altercation took place, they found firearms. The

victim “then jumped from the second story of the hotel where an employee witnessed the alleged

victim’s actions by jumping.” Officers observed swelling and bruising on the alleged victim’s

neck and face. The court also noted defendant was previously convicted for domestic violence,

and he had “a risk level of eight, which is moderate to high, and a DVSI of 15, which is high.”

The court further noted defendant, who was currently on probation based on an incident in

Pueblo County, Colorado, had an outstanding warrant because he never met with his probation

officer. The court considered defendant’s failure to comply with the conditions of his probation

when finding he was unlikely to comply with any release conditions the court might impose. The

court required defendant to have no contact with Allen.

¶ 11           After the circuit court entered its written order denying defendant pretrial release,

defendant filed his notice of appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(1)(iii) (eff. Oct.

19, 2023).

¶ 12           This appeal followed.

                                                -4-
¶ 13                                       II. ANALYSIS

¶ 14           On appeal, defendant argues the circuit court abused its discretion because the

State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions could mitigate the threat

he posed to the safety of any person or the community or prevent his willful flight. Specifically,

defendant argues Allen does not live in Illinois and a no contact order would ensure her safety.

¶ 15           Before a circuit court grants a petition seeking to deny pretrial release, 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 *** can mitigate *** the real and present

threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(2), (3)(i)

(West 2022). We review a pretrial release decision for an abuse of discretion. People v. Inman,

2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶¶ 10-11. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is

arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would agree with the court’s

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

¶ 16           Here, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant pretrial

release. The court carefully outlined its findings and reasoning both during the hearing and in its

written detention order. In reaching its decision, the court relied on the nature and characteristics

of the offense and defendant, including his access to firearms and the fact that he was on

probation when the altercation occurred and had failed to comply with the terms of his probation,

resulting in an outstanding warrant. See 725 ILS 5/110-6.1(g)(1), (2)(A), (7), (8) (West 2022).

Defendant allegedly strangled Allen twice, punched her in the face, and threatened her, saying,

“ ‘I should put one through you,’ ” while placing his hand on a holster containing a firearm. The

pretrial services report showed defendant was a moderate to high risk according to the risk

                                                -5-
assessment tool and he was a high risk on the DVSI. Defendant was on probation when he

allegedly committed the charged offenses. Based on these factors, the court found no pretrial

release conditions could mitigate defendant’s dangerousness to Allen or the community. The law

allows the court to consider these factors, and we will not substitute our own judgment on

appeal. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11. The court followed and applied the Code when

deciding to detain defendant. No abuse of discretion occurred, as the court’s decision was not

arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 10.

¶ 17                                   III. CONCLUSION

¶ 18           For all these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 19           Affirmed.

                                               -6-