Court Opinion

ID: 9913472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-27 22:02:51.660229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:00:25.604314
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 231897-U
                                                                                   THIRD DIVISION
                                                                                   December 27, 2023
                                             No. 1-23-1897B

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

                                                 IN THE
                                  APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                            FIRST DISTRICT
 ______________________________________________________________________________
 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                             )   Appeal from the
                                                                  )   Circuit Court of
           Plaintiff-Appellee,                                    )   Cook County.
                                                                  )
     v.                                                           )   No. 23 MC 1112426
                                                                  )
 IVAN PERALTA,                                                    )   Honorable
                                                                  )   Barbara L. Dawkins,
           Defendant-Appellant.                                   )   Judge, presiding.

           JUSTICE VAN TINE delivered the judgment of the court.
           Presiding Justice Reyes and D.B. Walker concurred in the judgment.

                                                 ORDER

¶1        Held: We reverse and remand this matter brought pursuant to the Pretrial Fairness Act
          (Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023)), where the circuit court failed to provide a written
          summary explaining why less restrictive means would be insufficient to mitigate the threat
          defendant’s release would present, as required under subsection 110-6.1(h)(1) of the Code
          of Civil Procedure. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West Supp. 2023).

¶2        Defendant-appellant Ivan Peralta has filed a Pretrial Fairness Act (PFA) appeal under

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023) from the circuit court’s order entered on
1-23-1897B

October 3, 2023, which denied his pretrial release. The State charged Peralta with first degree

murder and attempt first degree murder after Peralta shot two men on a Chicago city street, killing

one of them and injuring the other. At the pretrial detention hearing, the circuit court held that the

State had met its burden and proved by clear and convincing evidence that Peralta is ineligible for

pretrial release. Peralta appeals. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.

¶3                                        BACKGROUND

¶4     On the night of September 30, 2023, Peralta and his uncle were involved in a physical

altercation with a group of men outside of a liquor store in Chicago. Peralta has tendered a 56-

second video of the incident from a nearby security camera that shows the events immediately

prior and subsequent to the shootings outside of the liquor store. A man punches Peralta’s uncle in

the face. Peralta then shoots that man and another man who had not struck the uncle. One of the

men died and the other survived the incident. At the time of the incident, Peralta held a valid

firearm owner’s identification card and concealed carry license.

¶5     Based on the events of September 30, the State has charged Peralta with first degree murder

and attempt first degree murder. Pretrial services assigned Peralta a score of 2 out of 6 on the “new

criminal activity” scale, and a 1 out of 6 on the “failure to appear” scale. The State successfully

petitioned the circuit court for defendant’s pretrial detention. The court found the following: (1)

the proof was evident or the presumption was great that defendant has committed an offense that

qualified for pretrial detention because there is a video of defendant firing multiple shots at a group

of people during an altercation; (2) defendant’s release would pose a real and present threat to the

safety of a person, persons, or the community, as he is seen discharging a firearm into a group of

people, which is a disproportionate response to the threat in this incident; and (3) no condition or

combination of conditions of pretrial release can mitigate that threat as he is seen firing multiple

                                                  2
1-23-1897B

shots on a city street in connection with an altercation at a liquor store, and his pretrial services

investigation score corresponded with a “3”. Peralta appeals all three findings.

¶6                                            ANALYSIS

¶7     On appeal, Peralta argues that he should be released from pretrial detention because the

State failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) he committed murder or attempted

to commit murder because he acted in self-defense; (2) he is a danger to any person or the

community; and (3) no less restrictive conditions, such as electronic monitoring, required reporting

to pretrial services, and curfew, could mitigate the threat he poses to other persons and the

community.

¶8     In response, the State argues that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in deciding

to detain Peralta after finding that his conduct satisfied the three elements of the PFA inquiry. In

essence, the State rehashed the court’s verbal and written findings, in which the court briefly noted

each element and why Peralta satisfied it. The State did not address whether the court fulfilled its

obligation to provide a written summary explaining why or why not less restrictive conditions

could mitigate the threat Peralta presents.

¶9     In considering this appeal, this court has reviewed Peralta’s notice of appeal, as well as his

supporting recording, supporting memorandum, and the 56-second video clip of the shooting he

tendered. We have also reviewed the State’s response to Peralta’s memorandum.

¶ 10   Under section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, all defendants are presumed to be

eligible for pretrial release, unless the State can show, by clear and convincing evidence, that a

particular defendant should be denied pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e) (West Supp. 2023).

Clear and convincing evidence is “that quantum of proof that leaves no reasonable doubt in the

mind of the fact finder about the truth of the proposition in question.” In re Tiffany W., 2012 IL

                                                 3
1-23-1897B

App (1st) 102492-B, ¶ 12. To detain a defendant prior to trial, the State must show, by clear and

convincing evidence, that (1) the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant has

committed a qualifying offense, (2) the defendant’s pretrial release poses a real and present threat

to the safety of the community, and (3) that less restrictive conditions would not avoid that threat.

725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(d), (e) (West Supp. 2023). If the trial court determines that the defendant

should be denied pretrial release, the court is required to make written findings summarizing the

reasons for denying pretrial release. Id. § 110-6.1(h).

¶ 11   In support of its finding as to the first element, the circuit court noted that “Defendant is

on video firing multiple shots at a group of people during an altercation.” We find it evident that,

based on the video footage, defendant did commit qualifying offenses by discharging a firearm

into a group of men, killing one and injuring another. Both first degree murder and attempt first

degree murder are qualifying offenses under subsection 110-6.1(a) of the Code. 725 ILCS 5/110-

6.1(a) (West Supp. 2023). We agree, as the circuit court pointed out on the record, that shooting

multiple people in response to one of those people throwing a punch is disproportionate and

therefore cannot qualify as self-defense. Accordingly, Peralta likely cannot negate the murder

charge by claiming self-defense. Thus, at the very least, the presumption is great that Peralta

committed the charged offenses.

¶ 12   As to the second element, the circuit court noted that “Defendant fired multiple shots into

a crowd during/after a physical altercation which was a disproportionate response to the threat.

Defendant’s PSI level corresponds with a level 3.” Again, based on the video footage, it is evident

that Peralta poses a real and present threat to other people and the community at large. The video

shows Peralta discharging his gun into a group of people on a busy Chicago street. During the 56-

second video, at least four vehicles drive down the street adjacent to the liquor store, and at least

                                                  4
1-23-1897B

one pedestrian can be seen in the area. If Peralta had missed his intended targets, there is a real

chance that an errant bullet could have struck one of the vehicles, or a nearby pedestrian. Based

on the foregoing, Peralta poses a real and present threat.

¶ 13   As to the third element, the circuit court stated that “Defendant fired multiple shots on a

city street [illegible] to an altercation at a liquor store. His PSA score corresponds with a 3.” We

find that this explanation falls short of the requirements of subsection 110-6.1(h)(1), which

mandate a “written finding summarizing the court’s reasons for concluding that the defendant

should be denied pretrial release, including why less restrictive conditions would not avoid 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.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West Supp. 2023). Here, there is no

indication in the court’s verbal ruling or written order that it considered less restrictive conditions,

let alone an explanation of why less restrictive conditions would not mitigate the threat. We

therefore remand the matter to the circuit court to reconsider its decision on this element. On

remand, we instruct the circuit court to make written findings explaining why less restrictive

conditions would not mitigate the threat Peralta poses, should the court decide to detain him. To

be clear, we express no opinion on what the ultimate decision on this third element ought to be.

Rather, we direct the circuit court to consider the possibility of less restrictive conditions under

subsection 110-10(b), and explain why or why not such alternatives would be effective to mitigate

the threat Peralta poses.

¶ 14                                       CONCLUSION

¶ 15   For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court, and remand the

matter for consideration consistent with this order.

¶ 16   Reversed and remanded.

                                                   5