Court Opinion

ID: 9966063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 22:03:37.124055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:08.328329
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (1st) 240204U
                                  Nos. 1-24-0204B & 1-24-0309B cons.
                                        Order filed May 3, 2024
                                                                                         Sixth Division

 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. 23 CR 12670
                                                                  )
 CURTIS BROWN, JR.,                                               )   Honorable
                                                                  )   James Bryan Novy,
           Defendant-Appellant.                                   )   Judge, Presiding.

           PRESIDING JUSTICE ODEN JOHNSON delivered the judgment of the court.
           Justices C.A. Walker and Tailor concurred in the judgment.

                                              ORDER

¶1        Held: Trial court’s order granting the State’s petition for revocation was not an abuse of
                discretion where the State met its burden of proving by clear and convincing
                evidence the defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person
                or persons or the community because while on pretrial release, the defendant was
                charged with committing a battery.

¶2                                        BACKGROUND

¶3        A summary of the relevant evidence proffered by the parties during the hearing on the

State’s petition for revocation of pretrial release is as follows: In March of 2023, defendant Curtis
Nos. 1-24-0204B & 1-24-0309B cons.

Brown Jr. was charged with five counts of cyberstalking and harassment. Count 1 charged him

with cyberstalking and causing fear to a person (see 720 ILCS 5/12-7.5(a)(1) (West 2022)) in that

on October 30, 2022, and between November 3 and November 11, 2022, defendant sent numerous

emails to the lab manager at University of Chicago Mindworks Museum and subsequently the

museum’s general counsel. These emails were threatening in nature and allegedly included

remarks to kill and inflict extreme harm on the recipients. On the same alleged facts, Counts II and

IV charged him with cyberstalking and causing a person to suffer emotional distress. Count III

alleges cyberstalking through electronic communication. Count V charged him with harassment

and threatening injury to the person.

¶4     Defendant was taken into custody on these charges and the court granted defendant pretrial

release for the alleged offenses. The State’s petition to revoke pretrial release arose from an

incident which occurred on January 2, 2024. Officers allegedly were approached by someone at a

McDonald’s who stated defendant committed a battery near the restaurant. Officers later detained

Brown and conducted a show up. The complaining witness allegedly identified the person who

attacked him as defendant. Prior to defendant’s alleged battery, the court ordered defendant to

adhere to a curfew, which he allegedly failed to abide by on several occasions between December

14 and December 27, 2023. Defendant made a court appearance on December 28, 2023, where the

trial court informed him that any more violations would lead to a revocation of pretrial release.

¶5     The State filed a Petition for Revocation of Pretrial Release based on the arrest and

subsequent battery charge. The hearing for revocation of pretrial release was held on January 4,

2024, and was continued to January 5, 2024. The court emphasized that it would not consider any

evidence presented at the January 4 hearing because defense counsel had not received all the

                                               -2-
Nos. 1-24-0204B & 1-24-0309B cons.

discovery gathered by the State. At the hearing, the State asserted that defendant demonstrated that

he is a clear and present danger to the community. Furthermore, they argued that defendant’s

failure to comply with pretrial release curfew conditions proved there were no conditions that

could reasonably ensure the safety of the public or prevent him from being charged with another

felony or Class A misdemeanor.

¶6     At the hearing, defendant argued for release with the same conditions as the original pretrial

release. Those conditions included a 7 p.m. curfew at a hotel funded through mental health services

that he was receiving at the time. Defendant asserted that the State focused on issues in the case

unrelated to the reason he was before the court, which was the recent Class A misdemeanor battery.

Defense counsel also asked the court to consider defendant’s argument that he acted in self-defense

when he was charged with misdemeanor battery. Defendant stated he did not have contact with

either of the alleged victims deriving from the charges of cyberstalking and harassment. Defendant

also noted that there had been no reported violations of pretrial release conditions since he was

warned on December 28, 2023. Additionally, defense counsel stated that defendant did not

understand the terms of his pretrial release curfew prior to the December 28, 2023, appearance.

¶7     After hearing, the trial court found that defendant violated the pretrial release conditions

by being charged with battery. The court noted the presumption was great that defendant

committed the offense alleged and defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of the

complaining witness in the battery case, as well as the community. Furthermore, the trial court

relied on emails showing threats defendant made towards the University of Chicago to make its

decision. Those emails included threats of violence towards the police, the complaining witness, a

                                               -3-
Nos. 1-24-0204B & 1-24-0309B cons.

high school, and K9 units. Defendant’s counsel filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order

revoking his pretrial release and requested this court vacate that order.

¶8     Defendant’s appeal was timely filed within 14 days, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon

this court. In considering this appeal, we have reviewed the following documents that were

submitted pursuant to Rule 604(h): defendant’s notice of appeal from the order under the Pretrial

Fairness Act, defendant’s memorandum, and the State’s memorandum in response.

¶9                                           ANALYSIS

¶ 10   On appeal, defendant filed a Notice in Lieu of Rule 604(h) Memorandum. Defendant

challenges the order granting the State’s petition to revoke pretrial release and denying his petition

for release by arguing that: 1) the State failed its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the

proof is evident or the presumption is great that defendant committed the offense charged; 2) the

circuit court erred in its determination that no condition or combination of conditions would

reasonably ensure the appearance of defendant for later hearings or prevent defendant from being

charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor; 3) the court and the State improperly

treated the petition to revoke as an initial petition to detain; 4) the court’s determination that he is

a danger to the community is irrelevant for a petition to revoke, and the court’s findings are

insufficient to revoke release under 725 ILCS 5/110-6 (West 2022); and 5) the court failed to abide

by 725 ILCS 5/110-6(a) (West 2022) in that it refused to immediately release him once the charge

which was the basis of the petition to revoke was dismissed.

¶ 11   In response, the State’s argues that defense counsel’s argument is without merit because

the box counsel checked on the notice of appeal form applied to orders granting petitions for

pretrial detention under section 110-6.1 and not the order revoking pretrial release under section

                                                 -4-
Nos. 1-24-0204B & 1-24-0309B cons.

110-6(a). The State further argues that defense counsel’s argument that there were inconsistencies

between the proffers on January 4 and January 5, 2024, is without merit because the court clarified

that it would not consider the former proceedings when defense counsel had not received the

discovery the State gathered. The State relies on People v. Perez, 2024 IL App (2d) 230504 to

argue that the court found the ground for relief on the preprinted Rule 604(d) form was irrelevant

to the defendant’s appeal of revocation of pretrial release. Lastly, the State argues that defendant’s

argument that the hearing focused on the underlying cyberstalking charges as opposed to the new

battery charge is unsupported by section 110-6(a) of the Pretrial Release Act (Act) (725 ILCS

5/110-6(a) (West 2022)). The State contends that section 110-6(a) is “designed to protect victims

and the community from defendants who are alleged to have committed felonies or Class A

misdemeanors while on pretrial release.” People v. Green,- 2024 IL App (1st) 240211, ¶ 21.

¶ 12   Pretrial detention orders are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v. Inman, 2023 IL

App (4th) 230864, ¶¶ 10-11. A mere disagreement with a circuit court’s decision to place a

defendant in pretrial detention would not justify calling the decision an abuse of discretion. Id. The

decision is an abuse of discretion only if it is “arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable” or only if no

reasonable person would have agreed with the position adopted by the court. Id. ¶ 10.

¶ 13   According to the Act, it is presumed that a defendant has the right to be released on personal

recognizance under the condition that they attend all necessary court proceedings and refrain from

committing any criminal offenses, while also complying with all pretrial release terms (725 ILCS

5/110-2(a) (West 2022)). The responsibility lies with the State to demonstrate, with clear and

convincing evidence that no combination of release conditions would sufficiently ensure the

defendant’s appearance in court or prevent defendant from committing a subsequent felony or

                                                -5-
Nos. 1-24-0204B & 1-24-0309B cons.

Class A misdemeanor (725 ILCS 5/110-6(a) (West 2022)). If such evidence is presented, the

circuit court has the authority to order the defendant’s detention, particularly if defendant is

charged with a qualifying offense and deemed to pose a genuine and immediate threat to the safety

of individual or the community (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1-7) (West 2022)). However, if the court

determines that detention is not warranted, it may opt to impose additional conditions. 725 ILCS

5/110-6(a) (West 2022).

¶ 14    In cases where pretrial release is previously granted, it may only be revoked if the defendant

is charged with a felony or Class A misdemeanor that is alleged to have occurred during the

defendant’s pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/110-6(a) (West 2022). During a hearing for revocation of

pretrial release, the court shall consider all relevant circumstances, including nature and

seriousness of the offense. Id. If the court decides revocation is not appropriate, the defendant may

be released pretrial without modification to conditions of pretrial release. Id. In cases where pretrial

release is previously granted, it may only be revoked if the defendant is charged with a felony or

Class A misdemeanor that is alleged to have occurred during the defendant’s pretrial release. 725

ILCS 5/110-6(a) (West 2022). During a hearing for revocation of pretrial release, the court shall

consider all relevant circumstances, including nature and seriousness of the offense. Id. If the court

decides revocation is not appropriate, the defendant may be released pretrial without modification

to conditions of pretrial release. Id.

¶ 15    In a hearing on the petition for the revocation of pretrial release, the State must prove by

clear and convincing evidence that either no condition or combination of conditions will ensure

the defendant’s appearance in later hearings; or no condition or combination of conditions would

                                                 -6-
Nos. 1-24-0204B & 1-24-0309B cons.

prevent the defendant from being charged with another Class A misdemeanor or felony. 725 ILCS

5/110-6 (West 2022).

¶ 16   In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that there were no

conditions that could have prevented defendant from being charged with a subsequent Class A

misdemeanor. The record shows that defendant allegedly committed a battery while out on pretrial

release by sending several violent threats to workers at the University of Chicago. While defendant

argues the State proffered facts that were unsupported and irrelevant, the crime alleged against the

victim is one of a violent nature and the public safety of the alleged victim and the community are

at risk. The new alleged crime, coupled with the charges already pending against defendant, and

evidence of defendant threatening violent acts towards a high school and other people demonstrate

that defendant is a real and present threat to safety of the community. Additionally, we note that

defendant was residing in a hotel where he was receiving mental care, and counsel for defendant

has alleged that defendant cannot be placed on electronic monitoring while living at the hotel.

Therefore, electronic home monitoring is not an option.

¶ 17   Defendant further alleges that the court and the State improperly treated the petition to

revoke as an initial petition to detain despite it being untimely. However, under 725 ILCS 5/110-

6(a) (West 2022), the circuit court is required to consider “all relevant circumstances, including,

but not limited to, the nature and seriousness of the violation alleged.” In this case, the alleged

threats, some for which he had not been charged, must be considered when making the decision

on whether to revoke pretrial release. Furthermore, defendant argues that the court’s determination

that he is a danger to the community is irrelevant for a petition to revoke, and that the court’s

                                               -7-
Nos. 1-24-0204B & 1-24-0309B cons.

findings are insufficient to revoke release under section 110-6. We disagree because section 110-

6 states:

                “The court shall consider all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to,
        the nature and seriousness of the violation or criminal act alleged. The State shall bear the
        burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that no condition or combination of
        conditions of release would reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant for later
        hearings or prevent the defendant from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class
        A misdemeanor.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6 (West 2022).

¶ 18    Since the trial court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration, defendant’s

danger to the community is a circumstance that must be considered in the determination of whether

to grant a revocation of pretrial release. Additionally, based on the new charge, no condition or

combination of conditions would prevent defendant from being charged with another violent

felony or misdemeanor if he was released from custody. Therefore, defendant’s dangerousness to

the community is relevant to the determination of whether the petition for revocation of pretrial

release should be granted.

¶ 19    This case at hand is analogous to the case People v. Hood 2024 IL App (4th) 232062-U.

In Hood, the court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by determining that no

condition or combinations of conditions would prevent the defendant from being charged with a

Class A misdemeanor. In that case, the defendant was charged with aggravated battery of a peace

officer and was out on pretrial release. While out on pretrial release, the defendant was charged

with a new felony of armed habitual criminal. Officers observed the defendant trespassing and

when the defendant was placed into custody, officers discovered he was armed. The State filed a

petition for revocation of pretrial release, arguing no conditions or combination of conditions of

release would reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant for later hearings and prevent

                                                -8-
Nos. 1-24-0204B & 1-24-0309B cons.

him from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. The court granted the

State’s petition, finding that no conditions could prevent a subsequent felony or misdemeanor. On

appeal, the decision was affirmed. The court found the circuit court did not err when it revoked

the defendant’s pretrial release. The court stated that given the defendant’s criminal history, it was

not “unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful” for the trial court to find no conditions or combination of

conditions would be sufficient to prevent the defendant from being charged with another felony or

Class A misdemeanor.

¶ 20   In the current case, defendant was out on pretrial release from charges of cyberstalking and

harassment of individuals at the University of Chicago’s Mindworks Museum. While out on

pretrial release, defendant allegedly committed a battery on an individual at a McDonald’s

restaurant. Prior to the commission of the alleged battery, defendant committed multiple violations

of his pretrial release curfew conditions. This along with defendant’s alleged commission of a

battery, leads us to affirm the trial court’s findings that no conditions or combination or conditions

would reasonably ensure the appearance of defendant for later hearings or prevented defendant

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

¶ 21   Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining there were no conditions or

combination of conditions that could have prevented defendant from being charged with a

subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor.

¶ 22                                      CONCLUSION

¶ 23   For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s judgement.

¶ 24   Affirmed.

                                                -9-