Court Opinion

ID: 9940316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 22:03:23.408572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:44.739037
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (2d) 230485-U
                                         No. 2-23-0485
                                 Order filed February 13, 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)(l).
______________________________________________________________________________

                                            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. 21-CF-1857
                                       )
TAMIM SAMADI,                          ) Honorable
                                       ) David P. Kliment,
      Defendant-Appellant.             ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

       JUSTICE MULLEN delivered the judgment of the court.
       Justices Hutchinson and Schostok concurred in the judgment.

                                           ORDER

¶1     Held: Appeal dismissed where our decision would be advisory.

¶2     Defendant, Tamim Samadi, appeals the October 27, 2023, order of the circuit court of Kane

County denying pretrial release pursuant to article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963

(Code) (725 ILCS 5/art. 110 (West 2022)), commonly known as the Pretrial Fairness Act (Act).

See Pub. Acts. 101-652, § 10-255 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023) and 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023); Rowe

v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 52 (lifting stay and setting effective date of Act as September 18,
2024 IL App (2d) 230485-U

2023). 1 On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred when it determined that the Act does

not apply to individuals detained on a petition to revoke probation. For the reasons set forth below,

we dismiss defendant’s appeal.

¶3                                      I. BACKGROUND

¶4     The limited common law record filed in this appeal discloses that during a hearing on

October 25, 2023, defense counsel noted that he had previously filed a motion to reconsider

conditions of pretrial release in another matter (case No. 23-CF-991), and that he would be filing

a similar motion in this matter (case No. 21-CF-1857), “which is a post-sentence matter.” The

following day, defense counsel filed a “Motion for Reconsideration of Pretrial Release Conditions”

(Motion) in case No. 21-CF-1857. In the Motion, defense counsel indicated that, as of September

18, 2023, “[d]efendant is in custody for the offense [a]ggravated [b]attery to a [p]eace [o]fficer

[sic], and has been imposed certain pretrial release conditions including that the [d]efendant would

be released if they [sic] posted cash bail.” Defense counsel further wrote that “the offense of

[d]elivery of a [c]ontrolled [s]ubstance[] is an offense *** not listed in subsection (a)” of section

110-6.1 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)). Defense counsel asserted that defendant

was entitled to a hearing on the Motion within seven days.

¶5     On October 27, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on the Motion as well as other pleadings

filed in case No. 23-CF-991. At the beginning of the hearing, the trial court noted that, with respect

       1
           The Act has also been referred to as the Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and Equity-

Today (SAFE-T) Act. However, neither the titles “Pretrial Fairness Act” nor “SAFE-T Act” is

official, as neither appears in the Illinois Compiled Statutes or the public acts. Rowe, 2023 IL

129248, ¶ 4 n.1.

                                                -2-
2024 IL App (2d) 230485-U

to case No. 21-CF-1857, “that case is not pretrial.” The court asked defense counsel “[u]nder what

provision of the Act does the pretrial release apply to a post-sentence case?” Defense counsel

responded:

                   “Judge, under 730 ILCS 5/5-6-4, which is the violation, modification or revocation

         of probation statute, under subsection (3)(b) [sic], it indicates that the court shall conduct

         a hearing of the alleged violation. The court shall admit the [d]efendant to pretrial release

         pending the hearing unless the alleged violation is itself a criminal offense, in which case

         the offender shall be admitted to pretrial release on such terms as are provided under the

         Code ***.”

The State asserted that case No. 21-CF-1857 “is no longer pretrial, that the changes of the law

related to pretrial release, and that the *** Act govern [sic] pretrial release, not post-trial release,”

so defendant’s bail should remain set in case No. 21-CF-1857. Defense counsel replied that the

statute “does couch it in a language of pretrial release on a post-sentence case,” so defendant was

entitled to release pending a hearing on the Motion.

¶6       The trial court denied pretrial release in case No. 23-CF-991. 2 The court then remarked

that case No. 21-CF-1857 was “kind of moot at this point.” Nevertheless, the court found that “the

pretrial release measures do not apply to post-trial cases” and therefore left the monetary bond in

place.

         2
             In People v. Samadi, 2024 IL App (2d) 230486-U, we affirmed the trial court’s ruling in

case No. 23-CF-991.

                                                  -3-
2024 IL App (2d) 230485-U

¶7     On November 9, 2023, defense counsel filed a notice of appeal. The Office of the State

Appellate Defender was appointed to represent defendant and filed a memorandum in support of

defendant’s appeal. The State filed a response thereto.

¶8                                        II. ANALYSIS

¶9     On appeal, defendant argues that the Act applies to cases pending on petitions to revoke

probation. The State argues that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because neither the rules of

our supreme court or the Act allow for an interlocutory appeal from a petition to revoke probation.

Alternatively, the State contends that no purpose would be served by remanding this cause for

another hearing because a denial of defendant’s request to be released with conditions would have

been appropriate in this case.

¶ 10   In the memorandum in support of his appeal, defendant contends that jurisdiction lies in

this court pursuant to Article VI, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI,

§ 6) and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023). The constitutional provision cited

by defendant provides in relevant part that the supreme court “may provide by rule for appeals to

the Appellate Court from other than final judgments of Circuit Courts.” Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI,

§ 6). Rule 604(h)(1) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023) provides as follows:

               “(1) Orders Appealable. An appeal may be taken to the Appellate Court from an

       interlocutory order entered under sections 110-5, 110-6, and 110-6.1 of the Code *** as

       follows:

                       (i) by the State and by the defendant from an order imposing conditions of

               pretrial release;

                       (ii) by the defendant from an order revoking pretrial release or by the State

               from an order denying a petition to revoke pretrial release;

                                                -4-
2024 IL App (2d) 230485-U

                       (iii) by the defendant from an order denying pretrial release; or

                       (iv) by the State from an order denying a petition to deny pretrial release.”

In this case, defendant’s Motion referenced provisions of the Act and requested reconsideration of

“pretrial release” conditions. In response, the trial court denied defendant’s request. In its written

order, the court noted that the matter was before it “on the defendant’s motion for reconsideration

of pretrial release conditions on both 23CF991 and 21CF1857.” And although defendant’s

argument at the detention hearing was premised on section 5-6-4(b) of the Unified Code of

Corrections, that section refers to “pretrial release” and, tacitly, to the Act. 730 ILCS 5/5-6-4(b)

(West 2022) (“The court shall conduct a hearing of the alleged violation [of probation]. The court

shall admit the offender to pretrial release pending the hearing unless the alleged violation is itself

a criminal offense in which case the offender shall be admitted to pretrial release on such terms as

are provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, as amended.”). The Act is the provision

of the Code that addresses pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/art. 110 (West 2022). Thus, defendant’s

appeal is from an order “denying pretrial release.” We therefore reject the State’s argument and

conclude that we have jurisdiction to consider defendant’s appeal.

¶ 11   Nevertheless, as defendant concedes in his memorandum, the trial court ordered him

detained pending trial in case No. 23-CF-991. Defendant appealed from the trial court’s order in

case No. 23-CF-991, but we affirmed. People v. Samadi, 2024 IL App (2d) 230486-U. Thus, as a

practical matter, any substantive decision rendered in this appeal would, essentially, be advisory.

“Generally, reviewing courts will not render advisory opinions or consider an issue when it will

not affect the result.” People v. Brown, 236 Ill. 2d 175, 195 (2010). Accordingly, we dismiss

defendant’s appeal. We additionally observe that when the mandate in defendant’s companion case

(Samadi, 2024 IL App (2d) 230486-U) issues, this appeal will be moot.

                                                 -5-
2024 IL App (2d) 230485-U

¶ 12                                 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 13   For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss defendant’s appeal.

¶ 14   Appeal dismissed.

                                             -6-