Court Opinion

ID: 9905699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 21:04:38.439584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:50.472112
License: Public Domain

NOTICE               2023 IL App (4th) 230914-U
 This Order was filed under
                                                                                  FILED
 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is                                                November 29, 2023
                                         NO. 4-23-0914
 not precedent except in the                                                     Carla Bender
 limited circumstances allowed                                               4th District Appellate
 under Rule 23(e)(1).
                                 IN THE APPELLATE COURT                            Court, IL

                                          OF ILLINOIS

                                      FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                        )      Appeal from the
           Plaintiff-Appellee,                              )      Circuit Court of
           v.                                               )      Rock Island County
NAPOLEON JACKSON,                                           )      No. 23CF312
           Defendant-Appellant.                             )
                                                            )      Honorable
                                                            )      Frank R. Fuhr,
                                                            )      Judge Presiding.

                JUSTICE LANNERD delivered the judgment of the court.
                Presiding Justice DeArmond and Justice Zenoff concurred in the judgment.

                                            ORDER

¶1     Held: The circuit court’s order denying defendant pretrial release is affirmed.

¶2              On September 19, 2023, the circuit court entered an order to detain defendant,

Napoleon Jackson, under both the dangerousness and the willful flight standards of section 110-6.1

of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Procedure Code) as amended by Public Acts 101-652,

§ 10-255 and 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023) (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)), commonly

known as the Pretrial Fairness Act. Defendant appeals the circuit court’s decision. We affirm.

¶3                                     I. BACKGROUND

¶4              On April 15, 2023, the State charged defendant by information with two counts of

first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2), (b)(6)(c) (West 2022); home invasion (id. § 19-6(a)(5));

and aggravated battery (id. § 12-3.05(e)(1)). That same day, the circuit court set defendant’s cash

bond at $1 million.
¶5             On September 14, 2023, defendant filed a motion for pretrial release. The same day,

the State filed a verified petition to deny defendant’s pretrial release. Citing section 110-6.1(a)(1.5)

of the Procedure Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1.5) (West 2022)), the State noted defendant was

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

great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and the defendant’s pretrial release

poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community.” The State

also alleged defendant had a “high likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution” and was

charged with a “felony described in subdivisions (a)(1) through (a)(7) of 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1” (id.

§ 110-6.1(a)(1)-(7)). According to the State, defendant had prior weapons charges in two juvenile

cases. In this case, his charges carried mandatory terms of imprisonment. Further, he abruptly quit

school, fled the area, and was found in Newton, Iowa.

¶6             The State provided the following factual basis for denying defendant’s request for

pretrial release. On April 14, 2023, at approximately 12:44 a.m., Rock Island County deputies were

dispatched to a residence in Milan, Illinois, in response to a report of gunshots. When the deputies

entered the residence, they found D.T. (born June 25, 2005) on the floor, bleeding from a gunshot

wound. The deputies observed David T., D.T.’s father, performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation

(CPR) on his son. D.T. was pronounced dead at the scene. The police indicated a downstairs door

appeared to have been kicked in. David T. told the deputies he heard a noise and went downstairs

to investigate. He saw two young men holding D.T. at gunpoint. David T. began fighting with one

of the intruders while D.T. fought with the other. David T. then heard a gunshot and heard the

intruder fighting with D.T. say he had been shot. Someone then hit David T. in the head with a

blunt object. David T. then heard more gunshots. Thereafter, the two intruders left. After realizing

D.T. had been shot, David T. performed CPR on his son. David T. identified defendant as one of

                                                 -2-
the intruders.

¶7               Within 20 minutes of the 911 call from D.T.’s residence, J.S., a 15-year-old male,

was left at a hospital in Rock Island with a gunshot wound to his chest. J.S. indicated he had been

shot in Milan. After reviewing security footage from the hospital and area surveillance footage,

the police determined Antoinette Williams, Tationna Taylor, and defendant took J.S. to the hospital

in a Dodge Dart and left him there. The Dodge Dart was seen in surveillance footage driving to

Milan, parking near D.T.’s residence, and then driving to the hospital several minutes later.

¶8               Deputies were able to locate the Dodge Dart and spoke with the two females in the

vehicle. The females indicated defendant and J.S., who both had firearms, had gone to D.T.’s

residence to rob him of money and cannabis. J.S. kicked a door in to get inside the residence.

¶9               J.S.’s mother spoke voluntarily with officers and indicated she knew defendant had

shot both D.T. and J.S. According to J.S.’s mother, defendant said he accidentally shot J.S. while

trying to stop David T. from fighting with him. Defendant had called J.S. to apologize.

¶ 10             On September 19, 2023, the circuit court held a hearing on the State’s petition to

detain defendant. The State told the court the charged offenses were all forcible offenses,

defendant’s pretrial release would pose a real and present threat to the safety of a person or persons

or the community, and defendant had a high likelihood of willful flight. The information the State

provided at the hearing was consistent with the State’s petition. The State also informed the court

that defendant’s juvenile record included charges of possession of a firearm, aggravated battery,

and unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle, and his probation in the unlawful possession case had

been unsuccessfully discharged.

¶ 11             Defense counsel acknowledged defendant was charged with a detainable offense.

However, counsel argued the State failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that defendant

                                                -3-
posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community. As for

willful flight, defense counsel argued the State failed to establish any intentional conduct for the

purpose of thwarting the judicial process to avoid prosecution. According to defense counsel, the

circuit court could institute conditions on defendant such as home detention and GPS monitoring.

¶ 12           The circuit court found by clear and convincing evidence that defendant was

charged with a detainable offense and the presumption was great that defendant had committed

the charged offense. Further, the court concluded defendant was a threat to the community based

on the nature and character of the charged offenses and his prior history, and defendant was also a

flight risk because he had already once fled to Iowa.

¶ 13           In its written order filed on September 19, 2023, the circuit court found by clear

and convincing evidence that defendant should be detained under both the dangerousness standard

(725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a) (West 2022)) and the willful flight standard (id. § 110-6.1(a)(8)). Pursuant

to section 110-6.1(h)(1) of the Procedure Code (id. § 110-6.1(h)(1)), the court found less restrictive

conditions could not assure the safety of any person or persons or the community based on the

nature and circumstances of the offense and defendant’s history. Further, the court found less

restrictive conditions would not assure defendant’s appearance in court based on his prior flight.

¶ 14           This appeal followed.

¶ 15                                       II. ANALYSIS

¶ 16           On September 29, 2023, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h) (eff. Sept.

18, 2023), defendant’s trial counsel filed a notice of appeal challenging the circuit court’s order

denying defendant’s pretrial release. Defense counsel made the following assertions in the notice:

(1) the State failed to provide sufficient facts in its proffer to meet its burden of proving by clear

and convincing evidence that defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person

                                                -4-
or persons or the community; (2) the State failed to provide sufficient facts in its proffer to meet

its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of

conditions could mitigate the safety threat posed by defendant or the threat of defendant’s flight;

and (3) because of insufficient facts alleged by the court and in the State’s proffer, the court erred

by determining no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably ensure defendant’s

appearance for later court hearings or prevent defendant from being charged with a subsequent

felony or Class A misdemeanor.

¶ 17           The circuit court appointed the Office of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD) to

represent defendant on appeal. However, OSAD chose not to file a memorandum pursuant to

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h). As a result, other than defense counsel’s conclusory

assertions, defendant did not provide this court with any analysis explaining why the circuit court

erred in denying him pretrial release.

¶ 18           In People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11, this court indicated that, when

reviewing a circuit court’s decision to detain a defendant pretrial, we are not reviewing the

evidence presented by the State anew. “Instead, we are reviewing the circuit court’s evaluation of

that evidence for an abuse of discretion.” Id. In addition, this court held that, while our supreme

court has indicated the Pretrial Fairness Act has ushered in a new reality for pretrial release (See

Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 39 n.3), the new provisions of the Procedure Code “cannot

function independently from the larger, longstanding body of law governing appeals.” Inman, 2023

IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 10. While Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) may not

govern this type of appeal, this court made clear it would not ignore the appellate principles that

produced Rule 341. Id. ¶ 12.

¶ 19           Those principles require an appellant to provide “coherent argument and analysis

                                                -5-
supported by proper record citations and legal authorities.” Id. This court explained Rule 604(h)

requires the notice of appeal to provide a description and grounds for the relief requested, which

would appear to require some form of argument and justification for defendant’s requested relief,

record citations, and legal authority, if available. Id. According to this court’s decision in Inman,

this court cannot be expected to formulate arguments for a defendant. Id. ¶ 13. While Rule

604(h)(2) does not require a defendant to provide this court with a memorandum, this court

concluded our supreme court “expects appellants to at least include some rudimentary facts,

argument, or support for the conclusory claim[s] they have identified by checking a box” on a form

approved by our state’s highest court. Id.

¶ 20            In this case, defendant neither disputes he was charged with detainable offenses nor

that the proof is evident or the presumption great that he committed the charged offenses. Instead,

he simply alleges, without explanation, that the State’s proffer included insufficient facts to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant was a real and present threat to the safety

of a person, persons, or the community or that no condition or combination of conditions could

mitigate his threat to the safety of others or his risk of willful flight. He also asserts the circuit

court erred by determining no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably ensure his

appearance for later court hearings or prevent him from being charged with a subsequent felony

or Class A misdemeanor. In support of his claims, defendant only included vague, conclusory

statements.

¶ 21            Based on our review of the record and the lack of any meaningful argument, we

cannot say the circuit court abused its discretion in denying defendant pretrial release based on the

incredibly serious and violent nature of the charges in this case, defendant’s criminal history, and

his prior flight to Iowa.

                                                -6-
¶ 22                                  III. CONCLUSION

¶ 23          For the reasons stated, we affirm the Rock Island County circuit court’s judgment

and remand the cause for further proceedings.

¶ 24          Affirmed; cause remanded.

                                                -7-