Court Opinion

ID: 9916961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 23:03:16.758179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:11.706103
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (3d) 230546

                                Opinion filed January 10, 2024
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                    IN THE

                                    APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                              THIRD DISTRICT

                                                      2024

      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF                         )       Appeal from the Circuit Court
      ILLINOIS,                                          )       of the 18th Judicial Circuit,
                                                         )       Du Page County, Illinois,
             Plaintiff-Appellee,                         )
                                                         )
             v.                                          )       Circuit No. 23-CF-694
                                                         )
      RAVEN CHANEL GRANDBERRY,                           )       Honorable
                                                         )       Margaret M. O’Connell
             Defendant-Appellant.                        )       Judge, Presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

            JUSTICE ALBRECHT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
            Justices Holdridge and Peterson concurred in the judgment and opinion.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                  OPINION

¶1          Defendant, Raven Chanel Grandberry, appeals from the Du Page County circuit court’s

     order granting the State’s motion for pretrial detention, arguing that the court abused its discretion

     in finding that she was charged with a detainable offense. We reverse and remand.

¶2                                          I. BACKGROUND

¶3          Defendant was indicted with two counts of aggravated battery of a peace officer (Class 2)

     (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(d)(4) (West 2022)) and six counts of aggravated battery of a nurse (Class 3)

     (id. § 12-3.05(d)(11)) based on an April 2, 2023, incident. The indictments stated that defendant

     spit on officers and nurses and bit the finger of a nurse, causing bruising. Defendant’s bond was
     set at $100,000, and as conditions of bond, defendant was required to abstain from alcohol, wear

     a SCRAM device, and have no contact with the alleged victims. Defendant remained in custody

     due to her inability to pay.

¶4          On September 21, 2023, defendant filed a motion to reopen conditions of pretrial release.

     In response, the State filed a verified petition to deny pretrial release, alleging defendant was

     charged with a forcible felony, or any other felony which involved the threat of or infliction of

     great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement, and her release posed a real and present

     threat to the safety of any person, persons, or the community under section 110-6.1(a)(1.5) of the

     Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1.5) (West 2022)).

¶5          The factual basis provided in pertinent part, on April 2, 2023, officers responded to multiple

     calls of a vehicle driving recklessly on the roadway. Officers conducted a traffic stop of

     defendant’s vehicle and detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage. Defendant’s speech was

     slurred, and she had bloodshot, watery, glossy eyes. There was an open bottle of wine within

     defendant’s reach. Defendant became hostile towards paramedics. She went limp and refused to

     walk as she was being escorted to the ambulance. “Upon arrival at the hospital, the defendant

     began to spit on the floor. While being transferred to a hospital bed, the defendant struggled with

     the nurses and security and spit at them. The defendant also bit the finger of a nurse causing

     bruising.” Defendant’s known criminal history included a child restraint violation and a pending

     battery against a public safety official in Indiana.

¶6          A hearing was held on the petition on October 11, 2023. The State said, “When we say it

     is a forcible felony, it technically isn’t because there was no great bodily harm.” However, the

     State went on to argue, “we’re following under a felony which involves the threat of an infliction

     of great bodily harm, so based on the defendant’s conduct, we’re saying there was a threat of great

                                                       2
     bodily harm and she poses a risk to the safety of the public.” Defense counsel disagreed that it was

     a forcible felony stating that, under the statute, an aggravated battery is only a forcible felony when

     it causes great bodily harm, not when the aggravating factor is a special victim. Defense counsel

     argued that the “any other felony” portion of the statute only included any offenses not listed,

     which would not encompass aggravated battery as charged. The court found that defendant was

     charged with a detainable offense. At the close of the hearing, the court found that the State had

     met its burden and granted the petition.

¶7                                              II. ANALYSIS

¶8          On appeal, defendant contends that the court abused its discretion in granting the State’s

     petition to detain as she was not charged with a detainable offense. We consider factual findings

     for the manifest weight of the evidence, but the ultimate decision to grant or deny the State’s

     petition to detain is considered for an abuse of discretion. People v. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d)

     230317, ¶ 13. Under either standard, we consider whether the court’s determination is arbitrary or

     unreasonable. Id.; see also People v. Horne, 2023 IL App (2d) 230382, ¶ 19. We consider issues

     of statutory construction de novo. People v. Taylor, 2023 IL 128316, ¶ 45.

¶9          Everyone charged with an offense is eligible for pretrial release, which may only be denied

     in certain situations. 725 ILCS 5/110-2(a), 110-6.1 (West 2022). The State must file a verified

     petition requesting the denial of pretrial release. Id. § 110-6.1. The State then has the burden of

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

     defendant committed a detainable offense, (2) defendant poses a real and present threat to any

     person, persons, or the community or is a flight risk, and (3) no conditions could mitigate this

     threat or risk of flight. Id. § 110-6.1(e). When determining a defendant’s dangerousness and the

                                                       3
       conditions of release, the statute includes a nonexhaustive list of factors the court can consider. Id.

       §§ 110-6.1(g), 110-5.

¶ 10           Defendant argues that she was not charged with a detainable offense. Section 110-6.1(a)

       of the Code sets forth the various offenses eligible for pretrial detention. Id. § 110-6.1(a). The State

       specifically proceeded under section 110-6.1(a)(1.5), which states:

                      “[T]he defendant's pretrial release 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 the defendant is charged with a forcible felony, which as used in this

                      Section, means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory

                      criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal

                      sexual assault, armed robbery, aggravated robbery, robbery, burglary where there

                      is use of force against another person, residential burglary, home invasion,

                      vehicular invasion, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping,

                      aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or

                      disfigurement or any other felony which involves the threat of or infliction of great

                      bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement.” Id. § 110-6.1(a)(1.5).

       As the provision specifically defines what a forcible felony is for purposes of that section, we need

       not look elsewhere to define it.

¶ 11          Here, defendant was charged with aggravated battery of a peace officer and aggravated

       battery of a nurse. As stated above section 110-6.1(a)(1.5) provides that aggravated battery is a

       forcible felony when it results in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement. The

       State did not allege, and specifically conceded, that the victims did not suffer such injury. The facts

       that rendered the charges “aggravated” was solely the status of the victims as peace officers and

                                                          4
       nurses. Aggravated battery of a peace officer or a nurse is not listed as a forcible felony in that

       section.

¶ 12          Instead, the State argued, and the court agreed, that defendant’s charges fell under the “any

       other felony” portion of the statute. We disagree. The statute specifically lists 18 felonies that are

       considered forcible felonies and then states, “or any other felony which involves the threat of or

       infliction of great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement.” Id. This language means

       any felonies other than those listed. As the statute specifically enumerated a subset of aggravated

       battery as a forcible felony (aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent

       disability or disfigurement), “other felony” must refer to felonies other than aggravated battery,

       not different subsets of aggravated battery like we have here. Moreover, we note that the list of

       forcible felonies includes some felonies without qualification, like robbery and aggravated

       robbery, and others with qualification, like aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or

       permanent disability or disfigurement and burglary where there is use of force against another

       person. Had the legislature intended to include all aggravated batteries, it would have done so. We

       find support for our position in the Fourth District’s decision in People v. Brookshaw, 2023 IL

       App (4th) 230854-U, ¶ 13.

¶ 13          Therefore, we find that the court abused its discretion in granting the State’s petition as

       defendant was not charged with a detainable offense, and we remand for the court to determine the

       appropriate conditions for defendant’s pretrial release.

¶ 14                                          III. CONCLUSION

¶ 15          The judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is reversed and remanded.

¶ 16          Reversed and remanded.

                                                         5