Court Opinion

ID: 9915269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 22:03:24.57712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:20.868810
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (4th) 230948-U

   NOS. 4-23-0948, 4-23-0949, 4-23-0950, 4-23-0951, 4-23-0952, 4-23-0953, 4-23-0954, 4-23-
                               0956, 4-23-0957, 4-23-0958, 4-23-0959 cons.
            NOTICE
                                  IN THE APPELLATE COURT                        FILED
This Order was filed under                                                    January 4, 2024
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is                                                   Carla Bender
not precedent except in the                OF ILLINOIS
                                                                           4th District Appellate
limited circumstances allowed
under Rule 23(e)(1).                                                             Court, IL
                                        FOURTH DISTRICT

 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                         )      Appeal from the
            Plaintiff-Appellee,                               )      Circuit Court of
            v.                                                )      Winnebago County
 STEPHEN DOUGLAS PETERS JR.,                                  )      Nos. 21DT237
            Defendant-Appellant.                              )           21CM554
                                                              )           21CF894
                                                              )           21TR5753
                                                              )           21TR5754
                                                              )           21TR5755
                                                              )           21TR5756
                                                              )           21TR5757
                                                              )           22CM299
                                                              )           22CF364
                                                              )           22CM1470
                                                              )
                                                              )
                                                              )
                                                              )      Honorable
                                                              )      Philip J. Nicolosi,
                                                              )      Judge Presiding.

                 JUSTICE CAVANAGH delivered the judgment of the court.
                 Presiding Justice Turner and Justice Knecht concurred in the judgment.

                                              ORDER

¶1       Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court’s order revoking pretrial
               release was not an abuse of discretion.

¶2               Defendant, Stephen Douglas Peters Jr., appeals the trial court’s order revoking his

pretrial release pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/110

et seq.) (West 2022)), as amended by Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known
as the Pretrial Fairness Act. Defendant argues the trial court’s finding that a secured continuous

remote alcohol monitoring (SCRAM) bracelet would not reasonably prevent him from being

charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor was against the manifest weight of

the evidence. We affirm.

¶3                                      I. BACKGROUND

¶4             Defendant was on pretrial release for the following pending cases: driving under

the influence of alcohol, a Class A misdemeanor (Winnebago County case No. 21-DT-237);

causing a child to be endangered, a Class A misdemeanor (Winnebago County case No.

21-CM-554); criminal damage to government supported property, a Class 3 felony (Winnebago

County case No. 21-CF-894); aggravated domestic battery by strangulation, a Class 2 felony

(Winnebago County case No. 22-CF-364); violation of bail bond, a Class A misdemeanor

(Winnebago County case No. 22-CM-299); and resisting a peace officer, a Class A misdemeanor

(Winnebago County case No. 22-CM-1470). On September 15, 2023, while on pretrial release,

defendant was charged with aggravated assault, a Class A misdemeanor (720 ILCS 5/12-2(c)(1)

(West 2022)) in Winnebago County case No. 23-CM-1901. On September 22, 2023, the State

filed a petition to revoke defendant’s pretrial release citing his pending cases and the newly

charged aggravated assault, and it argued no condition or combination of conditions of release

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

from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. A hearing on the State’s

petition was held on September 25, 2023.

¶5             At the hearing, the State summarized a brief history of defendant’s pending

matters. In March 2019, defendant was arrested for driving under the influence. At the time of

his arrest, defendant had his child in the vehicle. The child was not in a child restraint, which led

                                                -2-
to the child endangerment charge. While in the back seat of a police car following his arrest for

driving under the influence, defendant damaged a window and window frame of the police

vehicle, leading to him being charged with criminal damage to government supported property.

In February 2022, defendant was charged with aggravated domestic battery for strangling his

cousin. A couple weeks later, defendant was charged with violating his bail bond condition of no

contact with his cousin when he texted her. In September 2022, defendant was in an altercation

with a minor wherein a witness described defendant as “drunk and confrontational.” When police

made contact with him, he refused to obey lawful orders, leading to his resisting-a-peace-officer

charge.

¶6             On September 15, 2023, the State proffered Janessa Zimmerman was at the home

of her boyfriend, Andre Carter, where defendant resides, when defendant, who was intoxicated,

entered her room. Zimmerman told defendant to leave. Defendant later returned with a knife and

began swinging the knife at Carter “four to five times.” Zimmerman called the police. Defendant

became angrier and threatened to kill Zimmerman. Defendant swung the knife at Zimmerman,

but Carter stepped in between them, and defendant dropped the knife. Carter corroborated

Zimmerman’s version of events.

¶7             Regarding defendant’s previous history of court appearances, the State noted

defendant has had “two or more” previous failures to appear. Defendant rebutted that all of the

previous bench warrants after 2010 were recalled by the court. Additionally, there were no prior

petitions to revoke probation or court supervision for defendant’s prior cases.

¶8             Defendant argued the State had not met its burden by clear and convincing

evidence that no conditions or combination of conditions of bond would ensure defendant would

appear for court or prevent him from being charged with a subsequent Class A misdemeanor or

                                               -3-
felony. Defendant also offered that the trial court could require him to wear a SCRAM device as

a new condition of pretrial release.

¶9             The trial court noted defendant had posted bond on four separate charges over the

past two years. Each bond sheet indicated defendant was not to violate any criminal statute of

any jurisdiction. Defendant’s pretrial risk assessment indicated he was “Moderate/High Risk.”

The court stated defendant had 15 bench warrants issued for failures to appear. The court found

the State had met its burden by clear and convincing evidence.

¶ 10           The trial court revoked defendant’s pretrial release and amended defendant’s

conditions to include reporting to pretrial services, obtaining an alcohol and drug evaluation, and

having no contact with any alleged victims in any of his pending cases.

¶ 11           This appeal followed.

¶ 12                                      II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13           On appeal, defendant argues the trial court’s finding that SCRAM would not

reasonably prevent him from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor

was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 14           Regarding the standard of review, defendant contends we should find the court’s

ruling to be against the manifest weight of the evidence but that is not our standard of review. On

appeal, “we are not reviewing the State’s evidence anew. Instead, we are reviewing the [trial]

court’s evaluation of that evidence for an abuse of discretion.” People v. Inman, 2023 IL App

(4th) 230864, ¶ 11. Therefore, we will apply an abuse of discretion standard. 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. Id. ¶ 10.

¶ 15           Section 110-6(a) of the Code states:

                                               -4-
               “When a defendant has previously been granted pretrial release under this Section

               for a felony or Class A misdemeanor, that pretrial release may be revoked only if

               the defendant is charged with a felony or Class A misdemeanor that is alleged to

               have occurred during defendant’s pretrial release after a hearing on the court’s

               own motion or upon the filing of a verified petition by the State.” 725 ILCS

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

¶ 16           Here, defendant was previously charged with criminal damage to government

supported property and aggravated domestic battery, both felonies, and defendant’s remaining

pending cases were all Class A misdemeanors. Defendant posted bond on several of these cases.

While on pretrial release, defendant was charged with a subsequent Class A misdemeanor for

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

¶ 17           Defendant argues the impetus for the State’s petition from its proffer involves his

alcohol consumption, which led to his alleged violent behavior. Based on the State’s arguments

at the hearing, defendant contends the State offered no arguments or evidence and the trial court

did not explicitly address whether SCRAM could reasonably prevent him from being charged

with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor.

¶ 18           We find defendant’s arguments unpersuasive. As defendant notes in his

memorandum to this court, SCRAM cannot physically prevent him from drinking, nor from

committing new offenses. SCRAM can only alert law enforcement when defendant has been

drinking alcohol. Additionally, defendant’s pretrial release conditions were not that he refrain

from drinking alcohol but that he not violate any criminal statute of any jurisdiction. Defendant,

while on pretrial release, continued to be charged with new offenses, including the most recent

aggravated assault, which was the basis for the State’s petition to revoke his pretrial release.

                                                -5-
¶ 19           Furthermore, nothing in section 110-6(a) required the trial court to explicitly

address or provide specific reasons for rejecting defendant’s argument for SCRAM. The court

was required to “consider all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the nature and

seriousness of the violation or criminal act alleged.” 725 ILCS 110-6(a) (West 2022); see People

v. Smith, 2023 IL App (1st) 231756-U, ¶ 21 (“[T]he text of [section 110-6(a)] requires only that

the trial court consider all relevant circumstances in making its decision.” (Emphasis in

original.)). Defendant provides no reason to suggest the court did not consider SCRAM as a

potential condition of continued pretrial release. “We presume the [trial] court knows, follows,

and applies the law, unless the record affirmatively rebuts that presumption.” Inman, 2023 IL

App (4th) 230864, ¶ 14.

¶ 20           Because defendant has provided this court with no basis for finding the trial

court’s conclusions were arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, we find the court’s revocation of

defendant’s pretrial release was not an abuse of discretion.

¶ 21                                   III. CONCLUSION

¶ 22           For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the cause for

further proceedings.

¶ 23           Affirmed; cause remanded.

                                               -6-