Court Opinion

ID: 9962170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 21:03:43.162384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:57.677426
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (1st) 240307-U

                                                                                  FIRST DIVISION
                                                                                     April 22, 2024

                                          No. 1-24-0307B

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
                                                              )       Circuit Court of
       Plaintiff-Appellee                                     )       Cook County.
                                                              )
v.                                                            )       No. 19 CR 0993101
                                                              )
MAURICE MYERS,                                                )       Honorable
                                                              )       Nicholas Kantas,
       Defendant-Appellant.                                   )       Judge Presiding.
                                                              )

       PRESIDING JUSTICE FITZGERALD SMITH delivered the judgment of the court.
       Justices Lavin and Coghlan concurred in the judgment.

                                              ORDER

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

¶2     The defendant-appellant, Maurice Myers, appeals from the circuit court’s January 31, 2024

order, granting the State’s petition for denial of his pretrial release pursuant to section 110-6.1(a)

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

§ 10-255 and 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023) (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1), (6) (West 2022)), and
No. 1-24-0307B

commonly referred to as “the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today (SAFE-T) Act”

or the “Pretrial Fairness Act” (Act). See also Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h) (eff. Oct. 19, 2023); Rowe v.

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

appeal, the defendant contends that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that

no conditions of release could mitigate the risk of his threat to the safety of the community, so as

to justify his pretrial detention. The defendant further asserts that the circuit court erred by failing

to make a written finding summarizing its reasons for concluding that there were no such

mitigating conditions and that he should be denied pretrial release. For the following reasons, we

affirm.

¶3                                           II. BACKGOUND

¶4        On June 22, 2019, together with codefendant Kirby Brame, the defendant was charged

with: (1) first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (2) (West 2018)); (2) aggravated battery (720

ILCS 5/12-3.05(1) (West 2018)); and (3) aggravated discharge of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/24-

1.2(a)(2) (West 2018)) for his involvement in the shooting of two victims in the 3900 block of

West Lexington Street in Chicago. On that same day, a bond hearing was held, after which the

defendant was taken into mandatory pretrial custody. 1

¶5        After the subsequent amendments to the Act, the defendant filed a petition for pretrial

release pursuant to section 110-6.1 (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022) asserting that there were

conditions available to balance the safety of the community with his freedom. The defendant

alleged that he was only 22 years old when he was arrested for the instant crime, and that he had

1
    It is unclear from the record whether at this point bail was set or denied or whether any subsequent
motions for modification of bail were made. All that is apparent is that the defendant remained in
custody for the next three years.

                                                   -2-
No. 1-24-0307B

no prior violent convictions or juvenile adjudications. In addition, the petitioner asserted that he

had several ties to the community including his mother, Latoya Davis, who would allow him to

stay at her home on electronic monitoring and would ensure his appearance at every court hearing.

¶6      On January 31, 2024, the State filed a verified petition seeking to deny the defendant’s

pretrial release pursuant to sections 110-2, and 110-6.1(a)(1), (a)(1.5) of the Act (725 ILCS 5/110-

2, 110-6.1(a)(1), (a)(1.5) (West 2022)), alleging that the defendant was being charged with a non-

probationable forcible felony and that his pretrial release posed a real and present threat to the

safety of the community. The State further asserted that based on the specific and articulable facts

of that case, no condition or combination of conditions that the court could impose would mitigate

the risk of that threat.

¶7      On January 31, 2024, together with codefendant Brame, the defendant appeared in court

for a hearing on the two petitions.

¶8      At that hearing, defense counsel stated that she would rest on her motion for pretrial release.

In addition, she added that the defendant was 26-year-old and had no prior felony background.

Defense counsel also pointed out that the defendant had a lot of family in the area, including his

mother and several siblings, and that at the time of his arrest he was living with his mother and

working as a temporary assembly-line worker for MVP Workforce. Counsel also noted that the

defendant’s father, who lives in San Diego, was very “active” and “involved” in the defendant’s

defense.

¶9      In response, and in support of its petition seeking pretrial detention, the State proffered that

at around 6 p.m. on June 22, 2019, the defendant retrieved a gun from codefendant Brame, and

then proceeded to 3900 West Lexington Street, where he opened fire, striking two victims and

killing one.

                                                 -3-
No. 1-24-0307B

¶ 10   According to the State, earlier that afternoon, the defendant was inside a Boost Mobile cell

phone store, located near West Lexington Street and South Pulaski Road, together with

codefendant Brame, who worked there as a clerk, and two other witnesses. The defendant left the

store for a period of time, then returned and informed codefendant Brame that he had just been

robbed “by a group of people known to the area.” The defendant then instructed codefendant

Brame to retrieve a gun. Codefendant Brame went to the back of the store, and returned moments

later with a zipped bag, from which he removed a firearm. The defendant took the firearm and

began to leave the store. Codefendant Brame then suggested that the defendant wear a hoodie to

cover the gun. The defendant retrieved a hoodie, which was too small and then selected a larger

one, which he put on and used to cover the firearm before leaving the store.

¶ 11   The State further proffered that the defendant next met up with another individual, who

was eventually charged with possession of a controlled substance (hereinafter the PCS

codefendant). The two of them then walked towards the 3900 block of West Lexington Street.

Standing on the corner of Pulaski Road, and facing east onto Lexington Street, the defendant

opened fire on the people that he believed to be responsible for the robbery. After these unknown

individuals returned fire, the defendant ran back to the Boost Mobile store, where he informed the

occupants of his actions. Codefendant Brame took the gun from the defendant and the two went to

the back of the store.

¶ 12   The PCS codefendant then entered the store irate and began calling the defendant names

before proceeding to the back of the store with him. Codefendant Brame then emptied the store of

all occupants except for the defendant, the PCS codefendant, and another witness and a baby that

was inside a car seat on top of the counter. The four men then went to the back of the store and

hid. After a while, codefendant Brame returned to the front of the store to speak with the police.

                                               -4-
No. 1-24-0307B

Codefendant Brame blocked the officers’ access to the store and told them that no one was inside.

However, the police were able to contact the store owner and eventually gained access from the

back alley.

¶ 13      The police detained all of the individuals inside the store, and recovered two guns, two

hoodies and video evidence.

¶ 14      The State further proffered that there were two victims to the shooting, neither of whom

were directly linked the alleged robbing of the defendant. The first was shot in the head and

subsequently died at the hospital. The second was shot in the buttocks and had to have a portion

of his colon removed.

¶ 15      The State also proffered that the surviving victim and his brother-in-law both reported

hearing gunfire from the direction of Pulaski Road and returning fire coming down Lexington

Street and shooting westbound. The police recovered five shells matching the caliber of firearm,

which was allegedly used by the defendant.

¶ 16      The State also proffered that the defendant was identified as the shooter by way of his

clothing. Specifically, after the police received a call indicating that the shooter had run into the

Boost Mobile store wearing a white tank top, they discovered the defendant in the back of that

store wearing a white tank top and sweating profusely. In addition, the State proffered that both

the defendant and codefendant Brame gave statements to the police which were electronically

recorded.

¶ 17      The State next published a series of ten video clips, which supported its proffered evidence

and which it described in the following manner. 2

2
    The video clips were not impounded and are not part of the record before us. However, for purposes of
this appeal, both parties agree that the State’s description of their content is accurate.

                                                      -5-
No. 1-24-0307B

¶ 18      Exhibit 1 shows the defendant, who is wearing a white tank top, running into Boost Mobile,

and approaching codefendant Brame, who is standing behind the counter. Codefendant Brame then

rushes to the back of the store and returns with a fanny type bag, which he unzips for the defendant.

¶ 19      Exhibit 2 shows codefendant Brame pointing to a hoodie, which is on the window ledge

next to where the defendant is putting on another hoodie. Codefendant Brame picks up a white

shirt, hands it to the defendant and then takes it back, while they speak. The defendant then puts

his hoodie up over his head and exits the store.

¶ 20      Exhibit 3 shows the defendant reaching near his mid-section with his right hand while

exiting the Boost Mobile store, and then turning left along the wall, while holding his hands inside

his hoodie pocket.

¶ 21      Exhibit 4, which is a cell phone or surveillance video, shows the defendant running with

his arms outstretched and “pops of fire as he runs.”

¶ 22      Exhibit 5 begins with codefendant Brame sitting on the counter inside Boost Mobile. The

defendant approaches and passes him a silver handgun, which codefendant Brame “casually or

nonchalantly accepts *** without surprise,” before “they both head to the back room.”

¶ 23      Exhibit 6 shows the PCS codefendant entering the Boost Mobile store.

¶ 24      Exhibit 7 shows the defendant, codefendant Brame, and two other individuals in the back

of the store. Codefendant Brame is heard saying “Ain’t nobody trying to go to jail,” to which the

defendant replies, “I’m already going to jail.”

¶ 25      Exhibit 93 shows the same four men at the back of the store and reveals codefendant Brame

stating something along the lines “I put a pipe in your hand.”

¶ 26      Exhibit 10, which is part of the defendant’s electronically recorded interview with the

3
    There was no Exhibit 8 introduced into evidence.

                                                   -6-
No. 1-24-0307B

police, shows him stating that he was shot at first.

¶ 27    Exhibit 11, which is part of codefendant Brame’s electronically recorded interview with

the police, reveals him saying that he gave the defendant the gun.

¶ 28    After introducing the video evidence, the State pointed out that the defendant has three new

pending charges, namely two felony charges for possession of contraband in a penal institution

and aggravated battery of a correctional officer, and one misdemeanor charge for mob action. The

State indicated that it had video clip evidence of the defendant’s behavior while in jail but

ultimately did not present it to the court.

¶ 29    The State then discussed the defendant’s prior criminal background, noting that it included

five misdemeanor convictions, namely: (1) a 2019 criminal trespass to land conviction for which

he received 50 days in Cook County jail; (2) a 2019 attempt possession of a controlled substance

conviction, which was reduced from a Class 4 felony, and for which he received two days in jail;

(3) a 2018 criminal trespass to land conviction for which he received two days in jail; (4) a 2017

criminal trespass to land conviction for which he received two days in jail; and (5) a 2015

possession of cannabis conviction.

¶ 30    After hearing all the evidence, the circuit court first found that the State met its burden in

proving by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the charged offenses. The

court observed that the State’s proffered evidence regarding the defendant shooting into a crowd

of people was corroborated by the video evidence, which showed, inter alia, the defendant leaving

the cell phone store after having retrieved a gun from codefendant Brame and then running back

inside after the shooting. The court further pointed out that the defendant was arrested almost

immediately after the shooting wearing clothes similar to those he wore immediately prior to the

shooting.

                                                -7-
No. 1-24-0307B

¶ 31    The circuit court next found that the defendant posed a real and immediate threat to the

safety of the witnesses and the community. The court noted that the shooting occurred in the early

evening hours of June with multiple citizens present, and that it resulted in the death of one victim

and serious injuries to the other. As the court stated:

        “I cannot stress more how dangerous it was to be shooting a loaded gun on the streets of

        Chicago at 6 o’clock in summer, nothing is more evident to that than the fact that two

        people were shot, one person was killed.”

The court also found relevant that according to the video evidence the defendant did not seem “too

concerned” about what he had done. In addition, the video evidence showed him “putting on

different clothes, then taking them off, all of those things lend[ing] itself to his attempt to evade

and not get caught.”

¶ 32    The circuit court next found, that despite the mitigating evidence offered by defense

counsel, which it had considered, there was no condition beyond detention that could mitigate the

defendant’s real and present threat to the community “based on the egregious nature of the facts

of this case.”

¶ 33    Accordingly, the circuit court granted the State’s petition and ordered that the defendant

be detained pretrial. The defendant now appeals. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h) (eff. Oct. 19, 2023).

¶ 34                                     II. ANALYSIS

¶ 35    On appeal, the defendant argues that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing

evidence that there were no conditions that could mitigate the risk of threat that he posed to the

safety of the community. In addition, he asserts that the circuit court erred in failing to make a

written finding summarizing its reason for denying pretrial release, including why less restrictive

                                                 -8-
No. 1-24-0307B

conditions would not avoid a real and present threat to the safety of the community. For the

following reasons, we disagree with the defendant.

¶ 36   At the outset we set forth the relevant pretrial-release provisions of the new statute.

Pursuant to sections 110-2-1(a) and 110-6.1(e) of the Act, all defendants are presumed eligible for

pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/110-2(a), 110-6.1(e) (West 2022). The State may detain an accused if

it establishes that the charged offense is eligible for detention and then proves that: (1) the proof

is evident or the presumption great that the defendant committed an offense which qualifies him

for pretrial detention; (2) the defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any specific

person or persons or the community, based on the specific articulable facts of the case; and (3) no

condition or combination of conditions can mitigate that real and present threat. 725 ILCS 5/110-

6.1(e) (West 2022).

¶ 37   The State must prove each and every one of these three elements by clear and convincing

evidence. Id. Clear and convincing evidence is “that quantum of proof that leaves no reasonable

doubt in the mind of the fact finder about the truth of the proposition in question.” (Internal

quotation marks omitted.) In Re Tiffany W., 2012 IL App (1st) 102492-B, ¶ 12. It “is more than a

preponderance but less than is required to convict an individual of a criminal offense.” Id. If the

State fails to carry its burden on any of these three elements, the presumption of release remains,

and the detention is unlawful. 725 ILC 5/110-6.1(e) (West 2022).

¶ 38   At present, our courts disagree as to the appropriate standard of review. Some appellate

decisions have concluded that all aspects of detention hearings under the Act are subject to abuse

of discretion (see People v. Whitmore, 2023 IL App (1st) 231807, ¶¶ 18-19; People v. Inman, 2023

IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11) while others have exclusively utilized the manifest weight of the

evidence standard (see People v. Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶ 12; People v. Rodriguez,2023

                                                 -9-
No. 1-24-0307B

IL App (3d) 230450, ¶ 8). Other courts have adopted a mixed approach, under which the circuit

court’s determinations that the State has proved by “clear and convincing evidence” that the

defendant committed a qualifying offense, and that he is dangerous, is reviewed for the manifest

weight of the evidence, while the ultimate decision regarding detention, or the imposition of

conditions of release are subject to abuse of discretion review. See People v. Parker, 2024 IL App

(1st) 232164, ¶ 50; People v. Saucedo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232020, ¶¶ 31-36; People v. Hodge,

2024 IL App (3d) 230543, ¶ 8; People v. Vingara, 2023 IL App (5th) 230698, ¶ 10; People v.

Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13; People v. Reed, 2023 IL App (1st) 231834, ¶ 24, 31. Still

others have concluded that appeals under the Act should be reviewed de novo. See People v. Battle,

2023 IL App (1st) 231838, ¶ 18; Saucedo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232020 (Ellis, J., specially

concurring); see also People v. Herrera, 2023 IL App (1st) 231801, ¶¶ 22-24 (declining to decide

what standard of review applies, but suggesting that even under de novo review, the case could be

resolved based on legal error).

¶ 39   While we would affirm the instant detention order under any standard, we agree with the

rationale of those decisions that hold that detention orders under the Act should be reviewed for

an abuse of discretion. Whitmore, 2023 IL App (1st) 231807(B), ¶¶ 18-19; People v. Inman, 2023

IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11. An abuse of discretion occurs when the circuit court’s “ ‘ruling is

arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by

the circuit court.’ ” In re Marriage of Heroy, 2017 IL 120205, ¶ 24 (quoting Blum v. Koster, 235

Ill. 2d 21, 36 (2009)); see People v. Johnson, 2019 IL App (3d) 190582, ¶ 8. In addition, as the

reviewing court, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the circuit court merely because

we would have analyzed the appropriate factors differently. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶

11.

                                              - 10 -
No. 1-24-0307B

¶ 40   Turning to the merits of the defendant’s contentions, we begin by addressing whether the

State proved by clear and convincing evidence that there were no conditions of release that could

have mitigated the risk of the defendant’s threat to the community. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e) (3)

(West 2022). The potential conditions for such release are set forth in section 110-10 of the Act,

and provide, among other things, reporting in person, refraining from possessing a firearm,

refraining from communicating with particular persons, refraining from going to certain areas, and

being under home supervision with or without electronic monitoring. 725 ILCS 6/110-10(b) (West

2022). All of these conditions require that a defendant be able and willing to comply with and

respect the government actors and property necessary to enforce them. See People v. Parker, 2024

IL App (1st) 2322275-U, ¶ 44.

¶ 41   In the present case, the defendant contends that the State offered no evidence or discussion

regarding why less restrictive means beyond detention could not mitigate the purported risk posed

to the community by his pretrial release. In support, the defendant cites People v. Stock, 2023 IL

App (1st) 231753. For the following reasons, we disagree and find that decision inapposite.

¶ 42   In Stock, the appellate court reversed the defendant’s detention order because the State

failed to present any evidence regarding conditions of release and instead relied only on the basic

elements of the offense—aggravated battery based on the defendant’s alleged firing of a gun at his

wife and injuring her as she attempted to remove her belongings from the marital home while

seeking a divorce—as the backbone for its argument supporting the defendant’s detention. Id. This

is simply not the case here.

¶ 43   In the present case, the State presented evidence, and not mere conclusory statements, that

showed why no less restrictive conditions, and particularly electronic monitoring, sought by the

defendant, would mitigate the defendant’s risk to the community. After proffering evidence that

                                              - 11 -
No. 1-24-0307B

the defendant had indiscriminately shot at a crowd of people in the street, killing one person and

seriously injuring another, the State presented evidence of the defendant’s conduct since his

incarceration. According to the State, after his arrest in the instant matter, the defendant was

charged with three new offenses related to his behavior while in jail, one of which involved

violence against a correctional officer. Thus, unlike in Stock, here the State explicitly offered

evidence of the defendant’s inability to control his behavior and conform to legal requisites even

while incarcerated, which would be necessary for his compliance with any conditions of release

set by the court.

¶ 44   Having heard this evidence, the circuit court found that despite the mitigating evidence

offered by defense counsel, there was no condition of release that could mitigate the defendant’s

threat to the public based on the “egregious nature of the facts of this case.” In articulating those

facts, among other things, the court focused on the dangerousness of the defendant’s action, and

his subsequent lack of concern regarding them. Under this record, we find nothing “arbitrary,

fanciful or unreasonable” in the circuit court’s assessment. In re Marriage of Heroy, 2017 IL

120205, ¶ 24.

¶ 45   The defendant nonetheless contends that the circuit court erred when it failed to make a

written finding summarizing its reasons for denying pretrial release, including why less restrictive

conditions would not avoid a real and present threat to the safety of the community. In this respect,

the defendant points out that in its written order, next to the preprinted rubric indicating that it

found that no condition or combination of conditions” as set forth in section 110-10(b) of the Act

(725 ILCS 5/110-10(b) (West 2022)) could “mitigate the real threat to the safety” of the

community, the circuit court merely referenced its prior findings regarding the defendant’s

dangerousness, i.e., that he had shot at a group of people in the street, killing one and injuring

                                               - 12 -
No. 1-24-0307B

another. The defendant contends that this conclusory statement was insufficient under the statute.

For the following reasons, we disagree.

¶ 46     Under section 110-6.1(h)(1) of the Act, the circuit court must “make a written finding

summarizing the court’s reasoning for concluding that the defendant should be denied pretrial

release, including why less restrictive conditions would not avoid 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, or prevent the defendant’s willful flight from prosecution[.]” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West

2022).

¶ 47     In interpreting the scope of the written summary findings requirement of this section of the

Act, our courts have repeatedly held that in evaluating the sufficiency of the written order, the

circuit court’s written findings must be read in conjunction with its oral pronouncement, and that

“an explicit and individualized oral ruling may satisfy the requirements” of the statute. People v.

Andino-Acosta, 2024 IL App (2d) 230463, ¶¶ 15, 19; see also People v. Castillo, 2024 IL App (1st)

232315, ¶ 31; People v. Montano, 2024 IL App (1st) 232481-U, ¶ 24; People v. Collins, 2024 IL

App (2d) 230577-U, ¶ 17; People v. Wells, 2024 IL App (2d) 230521-U, ¶ 31. The reasoning has

been that the purpose of the written findings requirement is to ensure that detention decisions are

“based upon specific articulable facts” and are “individualized to each defendant,” and “to provide

the parties of the reasons for the court’s decision and to preserve this reasoning for appellate

review.” Andino-Acosta, 2024 IL App (2d) 230463, ¶ 19; Collins, 2024 IL App (2d) 230577-U, ¶

17; Wells, 2024 IL App (2d) 230521-U, ¶ 31. Accordingly, while we strongly prefer that circuit

courts summarize their reasons in writing for denying a defendant pretrial release and why less

restrictive conditions would not mitigate the threat, oral findings can nevertheless satisfy the

requirements of section 110-6.1(h)(1) if those findings are explicit, individualized, and based on

                                                - 13 -
No. 1-24-0307B

articulable facts presented at the hearing, such that they sufficiently apprise the defendant of the

reasons for the court’s ruling and allow for appellate review. Id. In such situations, remanding the

case for the circuit court to write out its correctly transcribed oral reasons does not “serve the

interests of justice.” Andino-Acosta, 2024 IL App (2d) 230463, ¶ 22.

¶ 48   In the present case, we agree with the defendant that the circuit court’s written order was

conclusory. We nonetheless find that when read together with the circuit court’s oral

pronouncements, the written order was “sufficient to apprise the defendant of the reasons for [the

court’s] ruling and to accommodate review under the Act.” Andino-Acosta, 2024 IL App (2d)

230463, ¶ 22. The transcript of the detention hearing reflects that the circuit court considered the

electronic monitoring alternative proposed by defense counsel in her motion for pretrial release,

but dismissed it based on its belief that no conditions could avoid a threat to the public. After

hearing the specific facts of the case, which revealed that the defendant shot indiscriminately at a

crowd of people in the street, in an attempt to avenge himself on those he “believed” had robbed

him, consequently killing one victim and seriously injuring another, the court found that based on

the “egregious nature of the facts of this case,” no condition of release could mitigate the threat to

the community posed by the defendant. The court described that threat in the following manner:

“I cannot stress more how dangerous it was to be shooting a loaded gun on the streets of Chicago

at 6 o’clock in summer, nothing is more evident to that than the fact that two people were shot,

one person was killed.” A fair reading of the circuit court’s oral pronouncement is that no

alternative to detention existed that would avoid a threat to the public given the specific facts of

that case. Accordingly, we find that the court’s oral comments, when read in connection with its

written findings, sufficiently articulated “its reasons why less restrictive conditions would not

avoid the threat to safety.” See Andino-Acosta, 2024 IL App (2d) 230463, ¶ 20 (holding that the

                                                - 14 -
No. 1-24-0307B

circuit court’s oral pronouncement was sufficient because it “displayed an analysis of the factors

concerning the determination of dangerousness, in accord with section 110-6.1(g) of the Act and

articulated [the] reasons why less restrictive conditions would not avoid the threat to safety”);

compare with People v. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶¶ 23-24 (determining that the court’s

findings “f[ell] short of complying with the ‘clear legislative directive’ to address less restrictive

conditions of release” where the court stated only that “[defendant] needs to be detained” and

provided no further detail in its detention order regarding less restrictive conditions of release);

People v. Peralta, 2023 IL App (1st) 231897-U, ¶ 13 (reversing and remanding where “there is no

indication in the court’s verbal ruling or written order that it considered less restrictive conditions,

let alone an explanation of why less restrictive conditions would not mitigate the threat.”)

¶ 49   For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 50   Affirmed.

                                                 - 15 -