Court Opinion

ID: 9929166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 21:03:35.748991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:54.860565
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (2d) 230480-U
                                         No. 2-23-0480
                                  Order filed February 1, 2024

      NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent
      except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________

                                            IN THE

                               APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                              SECOND DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE                ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
OF ILLINOIS,                           ) of Kane County.
                                       )
      Plaintiff-Appellee,              )
                                       )
v.                                     ) No. 23-CF-2385
                                       )
VICTOR H. MERAZ,                       ) Honorable
                                       ) John A. Barsanti,
      Defendant-Appellant.             ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

       PRESIDING JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the judgment of the court.
       Justices Jorgensen and Kennedy concurred in the judgment.

                                           ORDER

¶1     Held: Defendant filed a form notice of appeal from his detention order, adding only
             conclusory statements; he did not file a supporting memorandum. The record
             supports the trial court’s findings that defendant committed the qualifying offense
             and no less restrictive conditions could mitigate the danger he posed. Affirmed.

¶2     Defendant, Victor H. Meraz, timely appeals the detention order entered on November 6,

2023, pursuant to Public Act 101-652, § 10-255 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as the

Pretrial Fairness Act (Act). This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule

604(h) (eff. Oct. 19, 2023).
2024 IL App (2d) 230480-U

¶3                                         I. BACKGROUND

¶4     Defendant was charged with unlawful possession or use of a firearm by a felon in violation

of 725 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2022). Count I alleges that defendant possessed a firearm at a time

when he was a convicted felon, and the firearm did not have a serial number. Count II alleges that

defendant committed the offense of unlawful possession or use of a firearm by a felon and alleges

that defendant had been convicted of a felony at a time when he possessed firearm ammunition.

Count III alleges that defendant committed the offense of possession of a firearm while his FOID

card was invalid or not eligible in violation of 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1) (West 2022). Count IV alleges

that defendant possessed or transported a firearm with no serial number in violation of 720 ILCS

5/24-5.1(d) (West 2022). Count V alleges defendant committed the offense of resisting a police

officer in violation of id. § 31-1(a)(1). Count VI alleges that defendant committed the offense of

criminal damage to property not exceeding five hundred dollars in violation of id. § 21-1(a)(1).

Count VII alleges that defendant committed the offense of theft of less than five hundred dollars

in violation of id. § 16-1(a)(4). Such a violation made defendant eligible for denial of pretrial

release. See 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (a)(1) (West 2022).

¶5     We review the trial court’s order under a bifurcated standard of review. People v. Trottier,

2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. We review the trial court’s factual findings to determine whether

they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. A finding is against the manifest weight

of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent or if the finding is unreasonable,

arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. Id. We review the court’s ultimate determination

regarding pretrial release for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the

court’s decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would take

the view adopted by the trial court. Id.

                                                -2-
2024 IL App (2d) 230480-U

¶6                                        II. ANALYSIS

¶7     Defendant raises two claims of error in his notice of appeal, and he declined to file a

supporting Rule 604(h) memorandum. The first claim is that the State had not proved the offense

charged. He elaborated on the form notice of appeal: “The State failed to meet its burden because

the offense is based off of the testimony of one witness who did not see some of the actions.” The

second claim of error was whether no “condition or combination of conditions can mitigate the

real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community.” His elaboration

was: “Mr. Meraz indicated that he had two other addresses where he could reside at during this

case. There are pretrial services, such as electronic home monitoring that would have sufficed if

Mr. Meraz were to stay at another address.”

¶8     We have reviewed the record and believe that the following excerpt refutes defendant’s

first claim and its elaboration—the State “failed to meet its burden because the offense is based

off of the testimony of one witness who did not see some of the actions”:

               “I [Officer Pedota] know Meraz to be a convicted felon and unable to

       possession [sic] firearms. Officer Thurman gave chase and grabbed onto Meraz, who began

       to resist him. Meraz had his hand by his waistband. I assist [sic] Officer Thurman and we

       redirected Meraz off of the porch onto the cement where there was more ground to control

       Meraz. Officer Thurman grabbed Meraz’s right arm and I grabbed Meraz’s left arm. Meraz

       was placed into handcuffs. Meraz was turned over to search and the butt of black handgun

       was sticking out of his pants. Officer Thurman grabbed the handgun to secure the weapon.”

¶9     Relative to this account, the trial court stated: “Also on that fact pattern, which I thought is

important, is that the officer who was in the fact pattern, in the synopsis, actually did see the gun

                                                -3-
2024 IL App (2d) 230480-U

in the defendant’s waistband.” We determine that the officer’s statement, witnessing the gun being

in the defendant’s pants, was sufficient to establish the commission of the qualifying offense.

¶ 10   As for the second claim of error and its elaboration—“Mr. Meraz indicated that he had two

other addresses where he could reside at during this case. There are pre-trial services, such as

electronic home monitoring that would have sufficed if Mr. Meraz were to stay at another

address”—the court had the following factors to consider with respect to alternatives to denial of

release. Defendant had prior convictions for unlawful use of a weapon. Defendant was on bond in

case No. 22-CF-1029 at the time of this incident. A condition of that bond was that defendant was

not to possess a firearm or dangerous weapon. Defendant violated his pretrial conditions on August

11, 2023, in that he failed to check in with pretrial services as required. In finding that “no less

restrictive conditions could mitigate the danger posed by the defendant,” the court stated, “we tried

the restrictive conditions on the defendant and they did not work.” These factors are supported by

the manifest weight of the evidence and the denial of release was not an abuse of discretion.

¶ 11                                    III. CONCLUSION

¶ 12   We affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County.

¶ 13   Affirmed.

                                                -4-