Court Opinion

ID: 9962874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 21:04:35.176205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:58.417395
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (2d) 240079-U
                                        No. 2-24-0079
                                   Order filed April 23, 2024

      NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent
      except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________

                                             IN THE

                             APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                              SECOND DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE                ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
OF ILLINOIS,                           ) of Kane County.
                                       )
      Plaintiff-Appellee,              )
                                       )
v.                                     ) No. 23-CF-2476
                                       )
RICARDO NUNEZ,                         ) Honorable
                                       ) Salvatore LoPiccolo, Jr.,
      Defendant-Appellant.             ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

       JUSTICE SCHOSTOK delivered the judgment of the court.
       Justices Hutchinson and Birkett concurred in the judgment.

                                            ORDER

¶1     Held: The trial court did not err in denying the defendant pretrial release.

¶2     The defendant, Ricardo Nunez, appeals from the trial court’s order granting the State’s

petition to deny him pretrial release under article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963

(Code) (725 ILCS 5/art. 110 (West 2022)), as amended by Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023).

See Pub. Act 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023) (amending various provisions of P.A. 101-652);

Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 52 (lifting stay and setting effective date as September 18,

2023). We affirm.
2024 IL App (2d) 240079-U

¶3                                        I. BACKGROUND

¶4      On November 15, 2023, the defendant was charged with four counts of aggravated

domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.3(a-5) (West 2022)), a Class 2 felony. Two counts were based

on an incident that occurred on November 10, 2023, and two counts were based on an incident that

occurred on November 13, 2023. The allegations were that, on those two dates, the defendant

strangled the victim, Mayra Gonzalez Perez, making physical contact and causing bodily harm.

¶5      After his arrest, the State filed a petition to detain the defendant. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West

2022). The State alleged that there was probable cause to show that the defendant committed the

alleged offenses and that his pretrial release posed a real and present threat to the safety of any

person or persons or the community. Finally, as additional grounds to deny pretrial release, the

State noted that the defendant had an extensive criminal history, dating back to 1992, including

convictions for aggravated criminal sexual abuse, failure to register as a sex offender, robbery,

battery, residential burglary, retail theft, and resisting a peace officer.

¶6      At the hearing on the State’s petition, the State tendered the charging document, the

defendant’s criminal history, and the police synopsis. The synopsis related as follows. On

November 14, 2023, the victim went to the police station to report a past domestic battery. The

victim stated that in May 2023 she started renting an upstairs room in the defendant’s mother’s

house. At the time, the defendant was living in the basement of the home. On November 10,

2023, at about 3 p.m., the defendant entered the victim’s room. The victim told him that she did

not want to date him because he kisses her and has sex with her without her consent. The defendant

then grabbed the victim’s throat with his right hand and squeezed while lifting her up. The victim

stated that she was unable to breath or speak when he held her throat.

                                                  -2-
2024 IL App (2d) 240079-U

¶7     The victim further stated that, because of previous incidents when the defendant choked

her or had nonconsensual sex with her, she had her cell phone in the corner of the room and

recording during the November 10 incident. The officer stated in the synopsis that he viewed what

was recorded on the victim’s cell phone from that day. The officer saw that the victim was placing

something in her drawer when the defendant grabbed her by the throat, stood her upright, and was

lifting her. The victim was on her toes but her feet never fully came off the floor. The video had

no audio and stopped while the defendant was still holding her by the throat.

¶8     The victim also told the officer that, on November 13, 2023, at about 4 p.m., she was laying

in her bed when the defendant entered her room. He grabbed her by the neck and lifted her to a

standing position. She was not able to breathe or speak. After the defendant put her down, he said

he needed to leave but he was coming back and that he would kill her if she left the residence.

¶9     In the synopsis, the officer noted that the victim had a bruise the shape of a thumb pad on

the left side of her neck. The victim believed the bruise was from the incident on November 10.

The victim also had bloodshot eyes, but the officer noted that this could have been due to her being

upset during the interview. The officer spoke with an assistant State’s attorney, who approved

four charges of aggravated domestic battery.

¶ 10   At the hearing, the State also explained that the victim made the report on November 14,

2023, because the defendant called her and was upset that she was not at the residence. She told

him she was at work. He stated that he would shoot any vehicle he saw if he believed it was the

victim with another man. He also told her that he was planning to damage her room. When she

returned home from work that evening, everything in her room was thrown around and the room

was disheveled. That’s when the victim went to the police station to make her report. The victim

                                               -3-
2024 IL App (2d) 240079-U

also alleged that the defendant forced himself on her in June 2023. The State was still investigating

that allegation.

¶ 11    The State then addressed the defendant’s criminal history. The defendant had two juvenile

cases, one for battery and one for residential burglary, and was adjudicated delinquent in both

cases. While his juvenile case for residential burglary was pending, the defendant committed

aggravated criminal sexual abuse and was sentenced to three years in the department of

corrections. The defendant was also convicted of possession of cannabis while on juvenile

probation. The defendant had adult convictions for failure to register as a sex offender, possession

of a stolen motor vehicle, and robbery. The defendant had misdemeanor convictions for unlawful

possession of cannabis and drug paraphernalia, resisting a peace officer, battery, criminal damage

to property, and retail theft. As to the conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse, the State

noted that the defendant was 19 years old at the time and the victim, who became pregnant as a

result of the offense, was 13 years old. The State also noted that the circumstances of the charge

for possession of a stolen motor vehicle showed that the defendant had struck someone with a

broomstick and caused damage to two other vehicles. Finally, the State noted that the defendant

was a Sureños 13 gang member.

¶ 12    Based on the foregoing, the State argued that it provided clear and convincing evidence

that the defendant committed detainable offenses and that he posed a real and present threat to the

physical safety of specific identifiable person or persons or the community as a whole. The State

noted that the victim had moved out of the defendant’s mother’s house and had obtained an order

of protection but she still lived in the area and was afraid. The State argued that the defendant’s

criminal history showed that he does not care about rules, that he reacts with violence to many

                                                -4-
2024 IL App (2d) 240079-U

situations, and that, therefore, electronic home monitoring would not mitigate the threat he posed

to others.

¶ 13    In response, the defendant argued that he lived with his mother and had lived in Kane

County for 15 years. He was currently working and had five children to financially support. The

defendant acknowledged that he had a relationship with the victim but denied her allegations of

aggravated domestic battery. The defendant noted that there were no photos, medical records, or

disfigurement, and the victim did not appear at the hearing. The defendant also argued that there

was no evidence that the victim feared him. The defendant asserted that the State had not proved

he committed a detainable offense and that the State failed to prove that less restrictive conditions,

such as a no contact order, could not mitigate any alleged threat.

¶ 14    Following argument, the trial court granted the State’s petition to detain the defendant. The

trial court noted that it considered the factors in determining dangerousness set forth in section

6.1(g) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (g) (West 2022)). The trial court found that the victim’s

statements were corroborated by the officer’s observations of the video from the victim’s cell

phone. The trial court also noted, that on the day the victim made her report to the police, the

defendant had threatened to kill her and ransacked her room. The defendant also threatened to kill

the victim during the incident on November 13. The trial court found that the State had proved by

clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the charged offenses and that he posed

a real and present threat to the safety of the victim.

¶ 15    Finally, the trial court found that there were no conditions that could mitigate the threat

posed by the defendant. The trial court noted that the defendant had a criminal history of violence,

that his 2018 conviction for robbery was a forcible felony and that the defendant had convictions

for residential burglary, battery, and resisting a peace officer. Some of the defendant’s felony

                                                 -5-
2024 IL App (2d) 240079-U

offenses were committed while he was on juvenile probation. Further, the trial court noted that

the defendant choked the victim twice until she could not breathe. The trial court did not believe

that electronic home monitoring (EHM) or just an order of protection could assure the victim’s

safety. The trial court noted the EHM and GPS still allowed the defendant to leave his residence

to go to work and to go shopping. The trial court stated that the defendant’s history of committing

offenses while on juvenile probation, and the fact that the victim had informed the defendant that

she did not want to have a relationship with him but he did not stop contacting her, showed that

the defendant would not abide by conditions of release. A written order that included all the trial

court’s findings was entered the same day.

¶ 16      The defendant filed a timely form notice of appeal and elected not to file a memorandum

under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(2) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023) (providing that the appellant “may

file, but is not required to file, a memorandum”). The State filed a response in opposition to the

defendant’s appeal.

¶ 17                                       II. ANALYSIS

¶ 18      In his form notice of appeal, the defendant raises the following arguments. First, the

defendant argues that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was

evident or the presumption great that he committed the charged offenses. The defendant stated

that there were no witnesses, photographs, or medical records to support the allegations. Further,

there was a time lapse between the alleged incidents and the time of the victim’s report to the

police.

¶ 19      Second, the defendant argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear

and convincing evidence that defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person

or persons or the community based on the specific and articulable facts of the case. The defendant

                                                -6-
2024 IL App (2d) 240079-U

stated that the victim had moved out of his mother’s house and there was no evidence that the

victim feared for her safety. The defendant also asserted that there was no evidence that the

community’s safety was threatened.

¶ 20      Finally, the defendant argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that no

condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the real and present threat to the victim or

the community. In support, the defendant argued that any fear experienced by the complaining

witness could be mitigated by a no contact order and the State failed to explain why that condition

would not be sufficient.

¶ 21      In Illinois, all persons charged with an offense are eligible for pretrial release. 725 ILCS

5/110-2(a), 110-6.1(e) (West 2022). Pretrial release is governed by article 110 of the Code as

amended by the Act. Id. § 110-1 et seq. Under the Code, as amended by the Act, a defendant’s

pretrial release may only be denied in certain statutorily limited situations. Id. §§ 110-2(a), 110-

6.1(e).

¶ 22      Upon filing a verified petition requesting denial of pretrial release, the State has the burden

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

that the defendant has committed a qualifying offense (id. § 110-6.1(e)(1)), (2) the defendant’s

pretrial release would pose a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the

community (id. § 110-6.1(e)(2)), and (3) no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate

the real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community or prevent the defendant’s

willful flight from prosecution (id. § 110-6.1(e)(3)). “Evidence is clear and convincing if it leaves

no reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of fact as to the truth of the proposition in question

***.” Chaudhary v. Department of Human Services, 2023 IL 127712, ¶ 74.

                                                   -7-
2024 IL App (2d) 240079-U

¶ 23   We review the court’s decision to deny pretrial release under a bifurcated standard. People

v. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. Specifically, we review under the manifest-weight-

of-the-evidence standard the court’s factual findings as to dangerousness, flight risk, and whether

conditions of release could mitigate those risks. Id. A finding is against the manifest weight of

the evidence only where it is unreasonable or not based on the evidence presented. Id. We review

for an abuse of discretion the trial court’s ultimate determination regarding pretrial release. Id.

An abuse of discretion also occurs only when the trial court’s determination is arbitrary, fanciful,

or unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Id.

¶ 24   The defendant first argues that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence

that the proof is evident or the presumption great that he committed the charged offenses. The

defendant was charged with aggravated domestic battery. A person commits aggravated domestic

battery when, while committing a domestic battery, he strangles another person. 720 ILCS 5/12-

3.3(a-5) (West 2022). A person commits domestic battery when he causes bodily harm to a

household member or makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with a household

member. Id. § 3.2. Here, the police synopsis was sufficient to establish by clear and convincing

evidence that the defendant committed the charged detainable offenses. The victim’s statement

indicated that she lived in the same household as the defendant. Further, on two occasions, the

defendant entered her bedroom and strangled her to the point that she could not breathe or speak.

The police officer saw a video of one of the incidents, which corroborated the victim’s statement.

The officer also observed bruising on the victim’s neck. As a police synopsis alone may suffice

to meet the State’s burden (see, e.g., People v. Horne, 2023 IL App (2d) 230382, ¶ 14), the trial

court’s determination that the State met its burden of proof was not contrary to the manifest weight

of the evidence.

                                               -8-
2024 IL App (2d) 240079-U

¶ 25   In so ruling, we note that the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient because

there were no other witnesses, no photographs of the bruising on the victim’s neck, and there was

a time delay between the incidents and the report to police. However, such arguments are better

suited for trial. We note that the evidence required at a detention hearing is less than required at

trial. People v. Luna, 2024 IL App (2d) 230568, ¶ 9.

¶ 26   The defendant next argues that the State failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence,

that he poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community.

The defendant argues that the victim moved out of his mother’s home and there was no evidence

that she feared for her safety. This contention is without merit. The trial court found that the

defendant posed a threat to the victim. Despite the defendant’s contention, there was evidence that

the victim feared for her safety. The State informed the trial court that the victim had procured an

order of protection, still lived in the same area, and she said she was afraid. The police synopsis

indicated that, in addition to strangling her, the defendant had previously forced her to have sex

with him. On November 13, he threatened to kill her if she left the residence. Further, the record

showed that the victim was prompted to make her police report when the defendant called her and

threatened to kill her if he saw her with another man and then, later that day, ransacked her room.

The defendant also had a history of crimes involving violence, such as his convictions for battery,

resisting a peace officer, and unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle (where the defendant

attacked someone with a broom). In sum, the court’s finding that the State met its burden to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant presents a real and present threat of

danger to the victim was not unreasonable.

¶ 27   Finally, the defendant argues that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence

that no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the threat he posed to the victim.

                                               -9-
2024 IL App (2d) 240079-U

Where the trial court finds that the State proved a valid threat to the safety of any person or the

community, the court must determine which pretrial release conditions, “if any, will reasonably

ensure the appearance of a defendant as required or the safety of any other person or the community

and the likelihood of compliance by the defendant with all the conditions of pretrial release.” 725

ILCS 5/110-5(a)(1)-(6) (West 2022). In reaching its determination, the trial court must consider:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the

defendant; (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant; and (4) the seriousness of the threat

the defendant poses to any person or the community. Id. In addition, when a defendant is charged

with aggravated domestic battery, the trial court can consider additional factors, such as: whether

the alleged incident involved harassment or abuse as defined in the domestic violence statute;

whether the defendant has a history of domestic violence or a history of other criminal acts;

whether the defendant has been or is potentially a threat to any other person; the severity of the

alleged incident; whether a separation from the victim of abuse or a termination of the relationship

between them has recently occurred or is pending; whether the defendant has exhibited obsessive

or controlling behaviors toward the victim; and any other factors the court deems have a reasonable

bearing upon the defendant’s propensity or reputation for violent, abusive, or assaultive behavior,

or lack of that behavior. Id. § 110-5(a)(6).

¶ 28   In determining that no conditions of release could mitigate the threat the defendant posed

to the victim, the trial court found that an order of protection or no contact order could not ensure

the safety of the victim. The trial court also noted that EHM and GPS could not protect the victim

because such monitoring still allowed the defendant to travel to and from work and to go shopping.

The trial court also considered that the defendant had a history of not complying with conditions

of probation and that he continued to abuse the victim even after she told him she did not want a

                                                - 10 -
2024 IL App (2d) 240079-U

relationship with him. The record also indicated that the defendant threatened to kill the victim on

November 13 and that, on November 14, the victim was prompted to go to the police station after

the defendant again threatened to kill her and ransacked her room. Based on the foregoing, the

trial court’s finding that no conditions could mitigate the threat posed by the defendant’s release

was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 29                                   III. CONCLUSION

¶ 30   For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County.

¶ 31   Affirmed.

                                               - 11 -