Court Opinion

ID: 9909292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 21:03:50.455616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:36.766509
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 231770
                                        No. 1-23-1770B
                                Opinion filed December 12, 2023

                                                                                    Sixth Division

 ___________________________________________________________________________

                                              IN THE
                               APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                        FIRST DISTRICT
 ___________________________________________________________________________
                                                          )
 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                     )      Appeal from the Circuit Court
                                                          )      of Cook County.
         Plaintiff-Appellee,                              )
                                                          )      No. 2023200138301
 v.                                                       )
                                                          )      The Honorable
 CARLOS CLARK,                                            )      Anthony Calabrese,
                                                          )      Judge, presiding.
         Defendant-Appellant.                             )

         JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
         Justice C.A. Walker concurred in the judgement and opinion.
         Justice Tailor dissented, with opinion.

                                            OPINION

¶1     Timing is everything in life and law. The State timed the filing of its petition to detain

Carlos Clark to coincide with the effective date of 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), commonly known as the Pretrial Fairness Act. But the Code strictly limits the timing of

these petitions, notably when the State already agreed that the trial court should set bail.
No. 1-23-1770B

¶2     At the first appearance, the State secured an ex parte order permitting Clark’s possible

release by setting a bail amount. This earlier choice rendered its later petition to detain too late.

We reverse the trial court’s order detaining Clark and remand for the trial court to reinstate its prior

conditions of release. We express no opinion on a future ruling by the trial court if properly

presented under the Code on whether to detain Clark.

¶3                                           Background

¶4     At the State’s behest, about a month before the Pretrial Fairness Act became effective, the

trial court signed an order permitting Carlos Clark’s arrest and fixing his bail at $100,000 D. See

Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 4 n.1 (noting neither “Safety, Accountability, Fairness and

Equity-Today (SAFE-T) Act” nor “Pretrial Fairness Act” are “official” names but common

shorthand for the sequence of public acts). The trial court had acted in response to the State filing

a felony complaint that day charging Clark with aggravated vehicular hijacking (720 ILCS 5/18-

4(a)(1)) (West 2022).

¶5     The name of an assistant state’s attorney appears on the felony complaint, as does the

signature of the judge who found probable cause to arrest Clark. Although not legible, a

prosecutor’s signature also appears alongside the trial court’s signature on the order permitting

Clark’s arrest and setting bail. The felony minute sheet, filed the same day as the complaint and

trial court order, additionally laid out the alleged facts of three more possible offenses, unlawful

restraint, aggravated fleeing, and retail theft. (The dissent overlooks this portion of the record when

asserting “we do not know what evidence was presented” to the trial court. Infra ¶ 37.) The felony

minute sheet also noted Clark’s then-current custody in McHenry County.

                                                 -2-
No. 1-23-1770B

¶6     About three weeks later, the State executed the Cook County arrest warrant. Two days after

that, on the Act’s effective date, the State petitioned to detain Clark. The trial court held a hearing

that day, with Clark appearing for the first time.

¶7     Clark objected to the hearing. In his view, the Code did not permit the State to petition to

detain him. He contended the Code permitted him, and only him, to seek review of the set

conditions of release and offered no grounds for the State to now petition for his detention. In

response, the State objected to having “no opportunity to file any conditions on this case[.]” The

State contended that the Code permitted it to move to detain Clark during Clark’s first appearance

before the trial judge, so its petition was proper.

¶8     The trial court, the second judge to preside over this case, found:

               I don’t know what was or was not said to [the first judge] at the time of the issuance

       of the warrant. A warrant was issued for defendant’s arrest in the amount of $100,000 D. I

       can’t speak to what happened then. I believe that the issuance of the warrant is a mechanism

       by which the defendant is compelled to appear before a court.

               Typically, what happens is once those warrants are executed and defendants appear

       in front of me, I then make a determination as to whether probable cause exists. I listen and

       review the case in its entirety for purposes of setting a fair bond that includes setting any

       conditions that might be relevant, any concern, and it includes an in-depth consideration of

       all the factors from both sides, then I’ll be able to have an opportunity to make an

       appropriate decision in this case.

                                                 -3-
No. 1-23-1770B

               Before today’s date no hearing has been held. This is the first time the defendant is

       appearing. There is no opportunity for conditions to be filed and for an assessment to be

       able to be made as to what is or isn’t an appropriate condition of release for the defendant.

               I believe the State is well within their right given these unique circumstances on the

       first appearance after the issuance of a warrant and appearance off that warrant to be able

       to go forward with the [] Act and have a determination made as to whether or not the

       defendant should be detained, so over the Defense’s objection, I am going to allow the

       detention hearing.

¶9     The trial court held the detention hearing, denied pretrial release, and issued a written order.

¶ 10                                          Analysis

¶ 11   Clark contends the Code, as amended by the Pretrial Fairness Act, offers the State no

grounds for petitioning to detain those like him, whom the trial court ordered released at the start

of the prosecution and before the Act’s effective date. The State responds that the Code permitted

what it did: petition to detain Clark during his first appearance before trial court.

¶ 12   The parties’ dispute requires us to interpret a statute, presenting legal questions that we

review de novo. People v. Ramirez, 2023 IL 128123, ¶ 13. We read the statute in full, not

piecemeal. Ramirez, 2023 IL 128123, ¶ 13. We determine the statute’s meaning by discerning the

plain and ordinary meaning of its words. Id. And we do not add exceptions, limitations, or

conditions that would contradict the legislature’s intent. Id.

¶ 13   The parties agree their dispute turns, in part, on section 110-6.1(c), which controls the

timing for filing petitions to detain. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(c) (West 2022). The parties focus on the

meaning of the phrase “the first appearance before a judge,” as that phrase appears in subsection

                                                 -4-
No. 1-23-1770B

110-6.1(c)(1) (West 2022). Clark contends that phrase includes ex parte hearings at which the

State initiates the prosecution and seeks bail. The State argues that phrase excludes hearings at

which only the State appears and thus requires the defendant to appear as well.

¶ 14   We begin with the full text of section 110-6.1(c), which contains two subsections, and

italicize its use of the word appearance. Under subsection (c)(1),

       A petition may be filed without prior notice to the defendant at the first appearance before

       a judge, or within the 21 calendar days, except as provided in Section 110-6, after arrest

       and release of the defendant upon reasonable notice to defendant; provided that while such

       petition is pending before the court, the defendant if previously released shall not be

       detained.

The State reads this section as “at the [defendant’s] first appearance before a judge.” Under

subsection (c)(2),

       Upon filing, the court shall immediately hold a hearing on the petition unless a continuance

       is requested. If a continuance is requested and granted, the hearing shall be held within 48

       hours of the defendant’s first appearance if the defendant is charged with [certain class

       offenses], and within 24 hours if the defendant is charged with [other class offenses]. The

       Court may deny or grant the request for continuance. If the court decides to grant the

       continuance, the Court retains the discretion to detain or release the defendant in the time

       between the filing of the petition and the hearing.

Read together, section 110-6.1(c) uses two different phrases, suggesting a distinction between the

terms “the first appearance before a judge” (subsection (c)(1)) and “the defendant’s first

appearance” (subsection (c)(2)).

                                               -5-
No. 1-23-1770B

¶ 15   The State rejects any distinction, contending it properly petitioned to detain Clark under

subsection (c)(1) because “first appearance * * * refers to the first time a defendant appears before

a judge[.]” (Emphasis in original.) The State argues this court has “recently and repeatedly held”

“ the plain language of this subsection [permits it to] file a petition to detain at the time of the

defendant’s first appearance before a judge.” (Internal quotation omitted.) (citing People v.

Vingara, 2023 IL App (5th) 230698, ¶ 16 and People v. Rios, 2023 IL App (5th) 230724, ¶ 10).

We disagree.

¶ 16   The State’s reading limits subsection (c)(1)’s reach by adding the word “defendant’s” to

the phrase “the first appearance before a judge.” We may not add terms that contravene legislative

intent. Ramirez, 2023 IL 128123, ¶ 13. Here, the legislature envisioned a process where the State

and trial court need not wait for a defendant’s appearance before considering whether to detain

that person without setting bail. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(c)(1) (West 2022). This process may occur

“without prior notice to the defendant[.]” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(c)(1) (West 2022). As Clark

suggests, this process tracks the longstanding practice of seeking a “no bond arrest warrant” for

certain defendants. See 725 ILCS 5/110-4 (superseded by Act).

¶ 17   Under subsection (c)(1), “the first appearance before a judge” includes, as here, an ex parte

appearance by the State to begin the prosecution by filing a felony complaint and then seek an

order setting bail. Generally, “appearances” include parties to the litigation. See APPEARANCE,

Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (defining “appearance” as “coming into court as a party

or interested person, or as a lawyer on behalf of a party or interested person”). The State points to

nothing in the text of the Code supporting an interpretation of “appearance” that excludes the

State’s actual appearance before a trial judge to begin the prosecution and seek bail.

                                                -6-
No. 1-23-1770B

¶ 18    Nor do the State’s citations to Vingara and Rios persuade us otherwise. Contrary to the

State’s assertions, neither Vingara nor Rios “held” that the State’s reading of the Code was correct.

Both defendants in Vingara and Rios personally appeared when the trial courts set their bails

(People v. Vingara, 2023 IL App (5th) 230698, ¶ 3; People v. Rios, 2023 IL App (5th) 230724, ¶

3). Moreover, neither opinion analyzed subsection (c)(1)’s application to ex parte bail hearings at

the beginning of the prosecution.

¶ 19    Indeed, in dicta, the panels in Vingara and Rios asserted without analysis that

subsection(c)(1)’s text, “the first appearance before a judge,” meant the defendant’s first

appearance before a judge. People v. Vingara, 2023 IL App (5th) 230698, ¶ 16 (“Under the plain

language of this subsection, the State may file a petition to detain at the time of the defendant's

first appearance before a judge; no prior notice to the defendant is required.”); People v. Rios, 2023

IL App (5th) 230724, ¶ 10 (“The plain language of this section sets forth the deadline for the State

to file a petition to detain. The State may file a petition to detain at the time of the defendant's first

appearance before a judge; no prior notice to the defendant is required.”). For the reasons we gave,

we reject the idea that the “plain language” of subsection (c)(1) further excludes ex parte hearings

where the State begins the prosecution and seeks bail.

¶ 20    The State’s petition to detain was untimely under section 110-6.1(c) for two reasons. First,

as noted, the State did not seek to detain Clark when it began this prosecution at the first

appearance. The State instead sought bail of $100,000 D. Second, the State could not avail itself

of the Code’s 21-day extension, having failed to provide “reasonable notice” of its intent to detain.

The State petitioned to detain Clark the same day he first appeared, and the court immediately

overruled Clark’s objection to proceeding. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(c)(1) (West 2022). Even more

                                                  -7-
No. 1-23-1770B

essential, Clark has remained in custody since his arrest. Thus, no “arrest and release” has triggered

the 21-day extension. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(c) (1) (West 2022).

¶ 21    As this matter stands, the State improperly petitioned to detain Clark, and he remains

entitled to the conditions of bail the trial court set when the State began this prosecution. We

express no opinion on the merits to detain Clark if the State properly raises it (see 725 ILCS 5/110-

6.1(c)(1) (West 2022) (permitting State 21-day extension to file petition to detain)), or the trial

court properly considers it, (725 ILCS 5/110-7.5(b), 5(e) (West 2022) (permitting trial court to

“reopen the conditions of release hearing to determine what available pretrial conditions exist that

will reasonably ensure the appearance of a defendant as required, the safety of any other person,

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

These other opportunities, which the dissent overlooks to assert this opinion will leave the State

“powerless” (Infra ¶¶ 36-37), could result in Clark’s pretrial detention.

¶ 22    Reversed and remanded.

¶ 23    JUSTICE TAILOR, dissenting:

¶ 24    The majority holds that because the trial court set bond when it issued an arrest warrant for

Clark on the State’s ex parte application three weeks before the Pretrial Fairness Act became

effective, the State was precluded from seeking Clark’s detention when he appeared in court on

the warrant for the first time on September 18, 2023, the day the change to the Code went into

effect. I respectfully disagree.

¶ 25    On August 23, 2023, a felony complaint was filed in this case alleging that Clark committed

the offense of aggravated vehicular hijacking (720 ILCS 5/18-4(a)(1) (West 2022) on August 6,

2023, when he “knowingly took a motor vehicle, a 2009 Honda CRV * * * from the person of

                                                -8-
No. 1-23-1770B

[victim 1], a person 60 years of age or over, by the use of force. All occurred in the State of Illinois,

County of Cook, Village of Northbrook.” The complaint was signed and sworn to by Detective

Ochab, and was also signed by Judge Gemskie, who found probable cause to arrest. On the same

day, Judge Gemskie issued a warrant for Clark’s arrest and set bond at $100,000 D. The felony

minute sheet states that the sole charge against Clark is aggravated vehicular hijacking and recites

a narrative of the incident. The half sheet from that day also shows the only charge against Clark

was aggravated vehicular hijacking and includes the notation, “FPC (G). WTI $100,000D.”

Presumably, the acronym “FPC” stands for “finding of probable cause,” “(G)” stands for

“granted,” and the acronym “WTI” stands for “warrant to issue.”

¶ 26    Clark had been arrested by the Crystal Lake police department on August 9, 2023, and was

being held in McHenry County on an unrelated offense. Clark was arrested in this case on

September 16, 2023. On September 17, 2023, the day before Clark appeared in court on this case,

two additional complaints were sworn to by Illinois State police Trooper Sanchez, one for

aggravated fleeing, (625 ILCS 5/11-204.1 (West 2022)), and the other for unlawful restraint (720

ILCS 5/10-3-A (West 2022)). One complaint alleged that Clark committed the offense of

aggravated fleeing on August 6, 2023, when he was “the driver or operator of a vehicle, who have

[sic] been given a visual or audible signal by a peace officer, to wit: ISP, directing him to bring his

vehicle to a stop, failed to obey such direction[,] increased his speed or otherwise attempted to

elude the officer” in violation of section 5/11-204.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-

204.1 (West 2022)). The other complaint alleged that on August 6, 2023, Clark committed the

offense of unlawful restraint in that he “knowingly and without legal justification detained [victim

                                                  -9-
No. 1-23-1770B

2]” in violation of section 5/10-3-A of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/10-3-A (West

2022)).

¶ 27      On September 18, 2022, when Clark appeared in court, the public defender was appointed

to represent him. The two additional complaints sworn to by ISP Trooper Sanchez were filed with

the court. The State also moved to amend the complaint for aggravated vehicular hijacking. Clark

waived “re-swearing and re-verification of the complaints as amended.” The court then informed

Clark of the allegations in the complaint filed against him for aggravated vehicular hijacking on

August 23, 2023, and the complaints for aggravated fleeing and unlawful restraint filed on

September 18, 2023. Clark indicated that he understood.

¶ 28      The State then filed a petition for pretrial detention. Defense counsel objected to the

petition and argued that Judge Gemskie already set bond at $100,000 when she issued the warrant

on August 23, 2023. According to Clark, the Pretrial Fairness Act did not allow the State to seek

review of the previously imposed conditions of release–the $100,000 D bond–which was set when

the warrant was issued on August 23, 2023, on the State’s complaint for aggravated vehicular

hijacking. The State argued that the Pretrial Fairness Act allowed it to move to detain Clark during

his first appearance in court without prior notice and that the bond set in conjunction with the

warrant was solely to secure Clark’s first appearance in court to answer the charges against him.

¶ 29      The court rejected Clark’s argument and allowed the hearing to proceed “given the unique

circumstances on the first appearance after the issuance of a warrant.” The court reasoned that,

“[b]efore today’s date no hearing has been held. This is the first time the defendant is appearing.

There is no opportunity for conditions to be filed and for an assessment to be able to be made as

to what is or isn’t an appropriate condition of release for the defendant.” The State then asked the

                                               - 10 -
No. 1-23-1770B

court for Clark to be detained and for pretrial conditions and read a proffer containing the following

specific facts of each alleged offense into the record.

               “At approximately 6:25 p.m. on August 6th, Victim 1 who is a 67-year-old female

       parked her silver Honda CRV in the shared parking lot outside of CVS located at 936

       Willow Road. Victim 1 locked her car, but left her window slightly ajar before entering the

       store. When Victim 1 returned, she noticed something in the back seat of the Honda. As

       she unlocked the vehicle and opened the driver’s side door, the Defendant Carlos Clark

       moved from the back seat to the front seat and grabbed Victim 1’s car key from her hand.

       The Defendant then attempted to grab Victim 1’s purse as well. The Defendant told Victim

       1 that he would shoot her if she did not give him her purse. Victim 1 continued to fight

       back and the defendant eventually gave up, reentered Victim 1’s vehicle without the purse

       and drove away.

               Victim 1 immediately returned to the CVS and notified the cashier what happened

       and called the police.

               ***

               At approximately 8:08 p.m. on August 6th, the Defendant entered the back of a BP

       gas station located at 43rd and Wentworth in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, in Victim 1’s

       silver Honda CRV. The defendant started speaking to individuals about selling them

       cologne and perfume. Victim 2 works at the BP gas station and walked over to the

       Defendant to ask about the colognes he was selling.

                                                - 11 -
No. 1-23-1770B

              The Defendant told Victim 2 that he had additional products in his vehicle and

      invited Victim 2 to look. Victim 2 entered the vehicle and closed the door. The Defendant

      then entered the driver’s seat and sped away with Victim 2 in the vehicle.

              There were ISP squad cars in the parking lot when the Defendant pulled away.

              These events are recorded on surveillance video.

              The Defendant proceeded onto the highway while violating numerous traffic

      control devices while being pursued by ISP troopers including a right turn on red without

      stopping at the intersection of 43rd and Wentworth, two lane violations over solid white

      lines, speeding upwards of 110 miles per hour in a marked 55 miles per hour zone. Victim

      2 repeatedly begged the defendant to pull over and let him out, but the Defendant refused

      telling Victim 2 to be quiet or he would kill him while gesturing towards his waistband.

              The Defendant ran a red light at 71st Street and Lafayette which caused an accident

      where the vehicle was struck by oncoming traffic.

              The Defendant exited the vehicle and ran off on foot making good on his escape. A

      critical search was done based on surveillance which revealed that the defendant was on

      Electronic Monitoring for a possession of stolen motor vehicle out of the District 5. The

      Electric Home Monitoring GPS placed the Defendant at the ULTA, CVS, and BP gas

      station at this [sic] times reported.

              The Defendant was arrested by Crystal Lake PD on August 9th, 2023, for a retail

      theft. Fingerprints were taken from the stolen motor vehicle and the boxes of perfume

      which came back to the defendant.

              Photo lineups were provided to Victim 1 and Victim 2 on August 15th, 2023.

                                              - 12 -
No. 1-23-1770B

               Both Victim 1 and Victim 2 identified the defendant.”

¶ 30   The court then heard from a pretrial services representative who went over their

assessments and informed the court that Clark was a “six” on a scale of one to six for new criminal

activity. On the failure to appear scale of one to six, Clark was a “five.” The court noted the

assessment showed seven aggravating factors including Clark’s age, prior failures to appear in

court, prior felony convictions, and pending charges at the time of these offenses.

¶ 31   The majority concludes that the detention hearing was improper. It finds that when the

State filed a criminal complaint and obtained a warrant for Clark’s arrest that set a bond on August

23, 2023, an ex parte detention hearing was held, effectively releasing Clark “at the start of the

prosecution and before the Act’s effective date.” Supra, ¶11. Based on this finding, the majority

has determined that the State improperly petitioned to detain Clark on September 18, 2023,

because the petition was untimely under section 5/110-6.1(c).

¶ 32   Section 5/110-6.1(c)(1), which went into effect on September 18, 2023, the day Clark first

appeared in court in this case, states in relevant part: “A petition may be filed without prior notice

to the defendant at the first appearance before a judge ***.” (emphasis added). 725 ILCS 5/110-

6.1(c)(1) (West 2022). Subsection (c)(2) then states that, “[u]pon filing, the court shall immediately

hold a hearing on the petition unless a continuance is requested. If a continuance is requested and

granted, the hearing shall be held within 48 hours of the defendant’s first appearance ***.”

(emphasis added). Id. 110-6.1(c)(2) (West 2022).

¶ 33   Drawing on the difference in the “appearance” language in subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2),

the majority concludes that the “first appearance before a judge” language in subsection (c)(1)

encompasses the State’s initial ex parte appearance before the court to obtain a warrant for Clark’s

                                                - 13 -
No. 1-23-1770B

arrest, where the court also set bond at $100,000D. Therefore, according to the majority, the State

could not petition the court under subsection (c)(1) to detain him when Clark first appeared in

court on the warrant on September 18, 2023.

¶ 34   Two principals of statutory construction inform the resolution of this appeal. First, when

interpreting a statute, courts should consider a statute in its entirety, keeping in mind the subject it

addresses and the legislature’s apparent objective in enacting it. People v. Davis, 199 Ill. 2d 130,

135 (2002). Second, the primary objective in construing a statute is to give effect to the

legislature’s intent, presuming the legislature did not intend to create absurd, inconvenient or

unjust results. In re Madison H., 215 Ill. 2d 364, 372 (2005).

¶ 35   When subsection (c)(1) is read in conjunction with subsection (c)(2), the most reasonable

construction of the “first appearance before a judge” language in subsection (c)(1) is that it means

the first appearance before a judge at which the defendant is present. See People v. Vingara, 2023

IL App (5th) 230698, ¶ 16 (“Under the plain language of this subsection [5/110-6.19(c)(1)], the

State may file a petition to detain at the time of the defendant’s first appearance before a judge; no

prior notice to the defendant is required”); People v. Rios, 2023 IL App (5th) 230724, ¶ 10 (“The

State may file a petition to detain at the time of the defendant’s first appearance before a judge; no

prior notice to the defendant is required”). Prior to Clark’s arrest on the warrant, there would have

been no reason for the State to file a petition to detain him. Thus, subsection (c)(1) authorized the

State to petition the Court to detain Clark on his first appearance after his arrest without providing

him with notice of the petition.

¶ 36   Moreover, when the State applied for a warrant for Clark’s arrest, it obviously did not file

a petition under subsection (c)(1) to detain him because the change to the Code had not yet gone

                                                 - 14 -
No. 1-23-1770B

into effect. Cf. People v. Houts, 2023 IL App (5th) 230715-U, ¶ 13 (The State’s petition to detain

pursuant to section 110-6.1 after the Act went into effect was untimely because the State did not

file the petition to detain at defendant’s first appearance four months earlier when the defendant

was present and bond was set). Therefore, the majority’s conclusion that the State exhausted its

one opportunity under subsection (c)(1) to detain Clark without notice when it obtained ex parte a

warrant for his arrest that set a bond is flawed. I would presume that the legislature did not intend

to create this absurd result and therefore would find that the State’s petition to detain was not

untimely under section 5/110-6.1(c)(1).

¶ 37   Even assuming that the majority’s interpretation of section 5/110-6.1(c)(1) is correct, the

untimeliness of the petition to detain is not grounds for reversal in this case. Under the majority’s

interpretation, the State would be powerless to seek detention on a defendant’s first appearance in

court when a warrant had been previously issued and bond been set, in this case or any other,

regardless of what occurred between the time the court issued the arrest warrant and set bond and

the defendant first appeared in court. The trial court correctly recognized that we do not know what

evidence was presented to Judge Gemskie or how she arrived at the $100,000 D bond set in the

warrant. We do not know whether Judge Gemskie was equipped with the necessary information

to engage in the fulsome analysis that a detention hearing demands. Presumably Judge Gemskie

did not have before her a representative from pretrial services and did not know that Clark scored

a “six” on a scale of one to six for assessment of new criminal activity and a “five” out of six for

assessment of failure to appear. What we do know is the only felony complaint before her at the

time was for aggravated vehicular hijacking, which was subsequently amended on September 18,

2023, the day Clark appeared in court after being arrested on the warrant. The additional felony

                                               - 15 -
No. 1-23-1770B

complaints for aggravated fleeing and unlawful restraint were sworn to on September 17, 2023,

and filed in the circuit court the following day. The unlawful restraint complaint involved a

different alleged victim. We know that Judge Gemskie did not consider these charges when she

set bond on August 23, 2023. We also know that the hearing on August 23, 2023, had none of the

hallmarks of a detention hearing because, among other reasons, Clark was not present and was not

given the opportunity to testify, present witnesses, or offer information by proffer or otherwise.

See American Bar Association, Standard 10-5.10 (prescribing detailed procedures for pretrial

detention hearings, judicial orders for detention, and appellate review). Under the majority’s view,

the State could not seek Clark’s detention when he first appeared in court even though no detention

hearing had previously been held and Clark had been charged with new offenses that were not

considered by the court on August 23, 2023, when the warrant was issued and bail was set on the

aggravated vehicular hijacking complaint.

¶ 38   For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the trial court. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

                                               - 16 -
No. 1-23-1770B

                         People v. Clark, 2023 IL App (1st) 231770

Decision Under Review:       Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 23200138301;
                             the Hon. Anthony Calabrese, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys                    Sharone R. Mitchell Jr., Public Defender, of Chicago (Rebecca
for                          Cohen, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.
Appellant:

Attorneys                    Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Jessica R. Ball,
for                          Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel), for the People.
Appellee:

                                           - 17 -