Court Opinion

ID: 9965622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 21:05:09.825735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:18.276537
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (1st) 23-2400-U
                                      Order filed: May 2 , 2024

                                                                                  FIRST DISTRICT
                                                                                FOURTH DIVISION

                                           No. 1-23-2400B

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 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________

 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,            )        Appeal from the
                                                 )        Circuit Court of
       Plaintiff-Appellee,                       )        Cook County.
                                                 )
 v.                                              )        No. 23MC1114576
                                                 )
 PIERRE THORNE,                                  )        Honorable
                                                 )        Maryam Ahmad,
       Defendant-Appellant.                      )        Judge, presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

       PRESIDING JUSTICE ROCHFORD delivered the judgment of the court.
       Justice Hoffman concurred in the judgment.
       Justice Ocasio specially concurred.

                                               ORDER

¶1     Held: The circuit court’s order granting the State’s petition to deny pretrial release is
             affirmed over defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in considering the
             State’s proffer from police reports relating to his prior charges which were not
             tendered to defendant before the hearing.

¶2     Defendant, Pierre Thorne, appeals from an order granting the State’s petition to deny his

pretrial release pursuant to article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725

ILCS 5/110-1 et seq. (West 2022)), as amended by Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023),

commonly known as the Pretrial Fairness Act (Act). 1 Defendant argues that he was denied a fair

       1
          While commonly known by these names, neither the Illinois Compiled Statutes nor the forgoing
public act refer to the Act as the “Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today” Act, i.e., SAFE-T
No. 1-23-2400B

hearing on the State’s petition where the State relied, in part, on facts contained in defendant’s

prior police reports, but failed to produce those police reports in violation of section 6.1(f)(1) of

the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(f)(1) (West 2022)). For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶3      Defendant was arrested on November 29, 2023 for an incident which occurred on

December 8, 2022. The State filed felony complaints against defendant, which charged him with

aggravated battery in a public way and aggravated battery causing great bodily harm and alleged

defendant, “without legal justification, knowingly and intentionally caused bodily harm to Jay S.

Rudman (victim) in that he struck the victim in the head with a deadly weapon” at 100 West

Madison Street in Chicago, Illinois 60602, a public way.

¶4      That same day, the State filed a verified petition seeking to deny defendant pretrial release

pursuant to sections 110-2 and 110-6.1(a)(1.5) of the Code. Id. § 110-2, 6.1(a)(1.5). The State

generally alleged that defendant was charged with a detainable offense—aggravated battery

causing great bodily harm—and that defendant’s pretrial release posed 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, and that no less restrictive conditions would avoid that threat. More specifically, the petition

alleged:

                “On 12/8/2022, 11:00 a.m., 100 W. Madison St., [defendant] grabbed a metal object

        from the ground (possibly a metal pipe) walked behind [the victim], whom he did not know

        and who did not provoke [defendant]. Then, [defendant] struck the back of [the victim’s]

        head with the metal object. [The victim] immediately fell to the ground and began bleeding

Act, or the “Pretrial Fairness Act.” See Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 4 n. 1. Certain provisions of the
legislation in question were amended by Pub. Act 102-1104 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023). See Rowe, 2023 IL
129248, ¶ 4. The supreme court initially stayed the implementation of this legislation but vacated that stay
effective September 18, 2023. Id. ¶ 52.

                                                   -2-
No. 1-23-2400B

       profusely from the back of his head and also sustained lacerations to his face from his fall

       to the ground. [The witness] got a good look at [defendant] as he fled the scene past [the

       witness’s] stationary car. The incident was captured on POD camera. [Defendant’s]

       identity was learned by comparing his image from the POD video to images from the

       [Secretary] of State. On 9/21/23, [the witness] identified [defendant] in a photo array.

       [Defendant] was placed in custody on 11/29/23. Post-Miranda, he identified himself in still

       images from the POD vid[eo].”

¶5     And on that date, the circuit court held a hearing on the petition. At the hearing, defendant

was represented by an Assistant Public Defender (APD). At the outset of the hearing, the APD

acknowledged “receipt of the People’s petition as well as the arrest report, the original case

incident report, the [Chicago Police Department (CPD)] rap sheet, and a written version of the

State’s [proffer]. We are answering ready for hearing.”

¶6     The Assistant State’s Attorney (ASA) was placed under oath and made the State’s proffer.

On December 8, 2022 at 11:00 a.m. defendant and the victim were walking down Madison Street

in Chicago. Defendant, unprovoked, grabbed an “unknown metal object, possibly a metal pipe,

from the ground,” walked behind the victim, and struck the victim on the back of the head. The

victim fell to the ground and defendant dropped the metal object. There is no evidence that

defendant knew the victim. The victim did not see defendant before being struck; the attack “came

out of nowhere.”

¶7     A man sitting in the passenger’s side of a stationary vehicle witnessed the incident

(witness). After the attack, the witness observed defendant pick up the metal object from the

ground, walk past the passenger side of the witness’s vehicle, and leave the scene. The witness

then offered assistance to the victim and called 911.

                                               -3-
No. 1-23-2400B

¶8     When the officers arrived, they spoke with the witness and observed the victim on the

ground “bleeding profusely from the back of his head.” The victim was transported to the hospital.

The victim sustained multiple fractures to his face and jaw, a laceration to his chin, a laceration to

the exterior scalp, and an abrasion to his left eye. He also sustained a broken jaw, an injury to his

nose, and he lost several teeth. The victim required substantial medical attention following this

incident including multiple reconstructive surgeries. His face has been permanently disfigured.

¶9     The officers recovered POD camera footage of the incident and defendant leaving the scene

immediately following the attack. The officers identified defendant through the Illinois State

Police Emergency Radio Network. The officers compared the name, driver’s license information,

and Secretary of State image of the defendant to the POD video. Defendant’s photograph was then

placed in a photo array and the officers administered that photo array to the witness on September

21, 2023. The witness positively identified defendant as the offender who he saw hit the victim

with the metal object. After the witness identified defendant, officers went to defendant’s last

known address. When defendant exited the residence, the officers took him into custody and

advised him of his rights. Defendant waived his rights and made an identification of himself in a

still image from the POD video of the attack.

¶ 10   The State made a proffer of defendant’s criminal background including that at age 30, he

had been arrested 57 times as an adult and had several misdemeanor convictions. In December of

2020, defendant was convicted of Class A misdemeanors, battery and criminal damage to property,

and sentenced to concurrent one-year probations, which were terminated unsatisfactorily. In

December 2019, defendant was convicted of a Class A battery, causing bodily harm, and sentenced

to one month in jail. In June 2018, defendant was convicted of aggravated assault of a transit

authority employee, a Class A misdemeanor, and sentenced to four days in jail. In June 2017,

                                                -4-
No. 1-23-2400B

defendant was convicted of two different Class A misdemeanor battery charges, causing bodily

harm, and sentenced to concurrent 55 days in jail. In December 2012, defendant was convicted of

criminal trespass to real property and sentenced to two days in jail. In September 2016, defendant

was convicted of criminal trespass to land and sentenced to 11 days in jail. All of this background

was in the CPD rap sheet, which had been provided to defendant.

¶ 11   The State then began to give factual details as to defendant’s prior criminal cases. The APD

objected on the basis that the State had not tendered any “information about these previous

convictions beyond the rap sheet.” The State responded that “the public defender represented

defendant in each one of these cases and, therefore, would have all of the records accessible prior

to this hearing.” The circuit court overruled the objection.

¶ 12   The State continued with its proffer. In three misdemeanor battery cases, defendant struck

a victim in the back of the head with his fist and in two assault cases, defendant used a metal object

to threaten a victim. The State gave additional details to the location of defendant’s criminal history

as follows:

       “December 2020, 251 East Huron, punched a nurse at Northwestern; November 2020,

       criminal damage to property, 202 East Ohio; September 2020, criminal damage to

       property; 1212 South Michigan, smashed the front glass of a pizza establishment when he

       demanded pizza for no money and his demands were denied; 30 East Kinzie, May 2019,

       verbal altercation with a female homeless person over who gets to stay at the underpass of

       25 East Kinzie. The defendant struck the victim on the head with an aluminum cylinder.

       Going back to February of 2017, Judge, I would proffer that the other offenses that he has

       committed during that timeframe have all be in the downtown Chicago area. That is where

       he operates, and that goes to my point about the danger that he poses to the community.”

                                                 -5-
No. 1-23-2400B

The information about the addresses of the offenses are listed in defendant’s CPD rap sheet.

¶ 13   As to the danger which defendant poses to the community, the State also emphasized that

defendant’s conduct here was “incredibly brutal,” random, and unprovoked and that he had

previously engaged in similar violent acts in a similar locale. Further, the State maintained because

defendant has not learned from his prior cases, there is no condition that could be imposed that

would mitigate that risk.

¶ 14   Defense counsel then stated,

       “I believe Counsel is relying on police reports that are in his possession and not internal

       information from the State’s Attorney’s Office as has been in the case and other instances.

       It is the position of our office that according to the statute they are supposed to tender all

       police reports currently in their possession. We have not received the police reports from

       these prior convictions which the State relied upon in their proffer.”

The circuit court responded that “[t]he defendant was represented by the Law office of the Cook

County Public Defender. You all have all these court files. Discovery is tendered, and I will also

point out that this information is public information.”

¶ 15   Defense counsel proffered that defendant is a high school graduate and a lifelong resident

of Cook County with family support in the area.

¶ 16   Defense counsel argued that the proof was not evident nor the presumption great that

defendant is the person who committed the offense, and that the identification of defendant was in

question. As to dangerousness, defense counsel argued that defendant was a 4 under his pretrial

safety assessment. As for conditions, defense counsel argued that the court could impose

conditions or a combination of conditions that would ameliorate whatever risk defendant poses.

                                                -6-
No. 1-23-2400B

¶ 17    In rebuttal, the State maintained that detention is the only way to mitigate the risk defendant

poses to the community. If defendant is placed on electronic monitoring or any lesser condition of

release, he can commit the same types of crimes against the community.

¶ 18    Thereafter, a pretrial services officer testified to the results of defendant’s safety

assessment: “New criminal activity scale four, failure to appear scale four, yes to the new violent

criminal activity flag. PFA score coincides with supervision level 3.” The pretrial assessment

written report to the court also indicated that defendant’s criminal history included three prior

violent convictions and prior failures to appear.

¶ 19    At the close of the hearing, the court made oral findings. The court first concluded that the

State had shown by clear and convincing evidence that the proof is evident or the presumption

great that defendant committed the offense of aggravated battery, great bodily harm. The court

detailed the facts and nature of the incident and the significant injuries to the victim and noted the

witness’s identification of defendant. The court concluded that defendant’s post-Miranda

identification of himself in an image from the POD video diminished any argument against the

credibility of the witness’s identification.

¶ 20    As to dangerousness, whether defendant poses a real and present threat, the court stated:

                “When the Court heard defendant’s criminal history, to say that it was shocking to

        the consciousness is an understatement. It is immensely concerning, particularly the

        number of battery convictions in the Loop and involving hitting victims in the back of the

        head.

                The Court also notes that there is a violence flag, meaning were the defendant to

        violate the conditions of this Court’s release, the likelihood that it would be with a crime

        of violence.

                                                 -7-
No. 1-23-2400B

               The Court believes based on the horrific injuries that this complaining witness

       suffered, the random nature of this attack, and the defendant’s criminal history and the

       violence flag, that he poses a real and present threat to persons in the community.”

¶ 21   As to whether any conditions short of detention, including electronic home monitoring,

could mitigate the risk to the community, the court stated:

               “However, electronic monitoring has a number of shortcomings. [O]ne, individuals

       pursuant to the PFA receive two days off from electronic monitoring, call it what you will,

       furlough, time away, from electronic monitoring.

               Additionally, if there is a violation and someone goes AWOL from a facility or a

       location, that violation can’t be filed for 48 hours.

               So the Court finds that electronic monitoring has too many ways in which it could

       be violated, and because defendant’s criminal history, the nature of this attack, the Court

       believes *** that the only way to ensure the safety of the public while [defendant] awaits

       trial on this case is pretrial detention.”

¶ 22   The circuit court granted the State’s petition to deny the pretrial release of defendant. In its

written order as to the proof relating to defendant’s commission of the charged offenses, the court

stated that a witness identified defendant as the offender and defendant identified himself in an

incident photo as the person who battered the victim. As to the finding that defendant poses a

danger, the order stated that defendant “brutally and randomly beat” the victim who suffered

permanent disfigurement and defendant has prior random battery convictions “where he batters

others in the back of the head.” As to the finding that there were no combination of conditions

which could mitigate the danger, the order states that defendant has “54 arrests and 8

                                                    -8-
No. 1-23-2400B

[misdemeanor] convictions-many for random crimes of violence. EM can be violated in many

ways. Only detention can keep the community safe.”

¶ 23   Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)

(eff. Sept. 18, 2023). A supporting record and report of proceedings have been filed with this court,

and both defendant and the State have filed a memorandum.

¶ 24   On appeal, defendant contends, that the court erred in considering facts from police reports

relating to defendant’s prior crimes, which the State had not tendered to defense counsel prior to

the detention hearing in violation of section 110-6.1(f)(1) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(f)(1)

(West 2022)). He asks that we reverse the detention order outright or in the alternative to vacate

the detention order and remand for a new hearing.

¶ 25   Section 6.1(f)(1) provides that,

       “[p]rior to the hearing, the State shall tender to the defendant copies of the defendant’s

       criminal history available, any written or recorded statements, and the substance of any

       oral statements made by any person, if relied upon by the State in its petition, and any

       police reports in the prosecutor’s possession at the time of the hearing.” Id.

The questions raised by defendant’s appeal are whether the State violated this section by failing to

tender to the APD any police reports it had relating to defendant’s prior criminal conduct, whether

the court erred in considering the State’s proffer based on those police reports, and whether the

detention order should be reversed or vacated.

¶ 26   In determining whether the State was obligated to tender the police reports of defendant’s

other crimes, we must construe section 6.1(f)(1), which we do under a de novo standard. People v.

Taylor, 2023 IL 128316, ¶ 45. The primary goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and give

effect to the intention of the legislature. Jackson v. Board of Election Commissioners, 2012 IL

                                                 -9-
No. 1-23-2400B

111928, ¶ 48. The best indication of the legislative intent is the plain language of the statute. Id.

“The statute should be evaluated as a whole, with each provision construed in connection with

every other section. When the statutory language is clear, we must apply the statute as written

without resort to other tools of construction.” Id.

¶ 27   The purpose of section 6.1(f)(1) is to ensure that defendant has notice of the information

upon which the State will make its proffer and can review the records to provide a proffer in

support of release and to articulate challenges to the State’s proffer. See People v. Mezo, 2024 IL

App (3d) 230499, ¶ 11.

¶ 28   Section 6.1(f)(1) distinguishes a defendant’s criminal history from police reports. The State

did produce defendant’s available criminal history, the CPD rap sheet. However, under the plain

language of the section, the State was also to produce “police reports in the prosecutor’s

possession.” The statute does not limit this duty to only police reports relating to the charged

offenses at issue. In construing a statute, we may not impose limitations or restrictions which are

not contained in the statutory language. Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL

123186, ¶ 24. Based on the plain language of the statute and its purpose, we conclude that prior to

the detention hearing, the State had a duty to tender to defendant police reports in its possession

relating to the offenses at issue and any police reports relating to defendant’s prior crimes which

were in the possession of the prosecutor, particularly if the State intends to rely on those reports at

the detention hearing.

¶ 29   However, we must now consider whether the circuit court erred in considering that portion

the State’s proffer, which may have been based on earlier police reports. In framing the issue in

this way, we need not decide whether the court erred in overruling defendant’s objection to that

                                                - 10 -
No. 1-23-2400B

part of the proffer on the basis that the details of the prior charges would have been available to

the APD because the office represented defendant in those prior cases.

¶ 30   Defendant cites to Mezo, 2024 IL App (3d) 230499 in arguing the circuit court did commit

error. In Mezo, the State, prior to defendant’s pretrial hearing, failed to provide the defendant with

a copy of his criminal history. Id.¶ 4. At the hearing, defense counsel noted this failure and the

circuit court agreed that the statute required disclosure. Id. However, at the detention hearing, the

State relied on, and the circuit court considered the defendant’s criminal background. Id. ¶ 4-6. On

appeal, the Third District held that the State’s failure to comply with and the court’s failure to hold

the State to its obligation to tender the criminal history warranted a new hearing. Id. ¶ 10.

¶ 31   The court reasoned that, based on the plain language of the statute, the legislature intended

that the State tender to the defense any available criminal history prior to a detention hearing.

Id. ¶ 11. Section 6.1(f)(1) serves: “to allow the defense an adequate opportunity to effectively

respond to the State’s petition to deny release, to ensure the reliability of information presented to

the court under the strict timeframes of the Code’s pretrial release provisions, and to ensure a

defendant receives a fair hearing on the State’s petition to deny release.” Id. ¶ 11 The court

supported its conclusion by referring to section 110-5(f) of the Code, which states:

       “ ‘Prior to the defendant’s first appearance, and with sufficient time for meaningful

       attorney-client contact to gather information in order to advocate effectively for the

       defendant’s pretrial release, the court shall appoint [counsel] ***. Defense counsel shall

       have access to the same documentary information relied upon by the prosecution and

       presented to the court.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Id. ¶ 11 (quoting 725 ILCS 5/110-5(f)

       (West 2022).

                                                - 11 -
No. 1-23-2400B

The court reversed the circuit court’s detention order and remanded for a new hearing on the State’s

petition. Id. ¶ 15.

¶ 32    In determining whether the circuit court erred in considering the information from the prior

police reports and whether there should be a new detention hearing here, we find the decision in

People v. Davis, 2023 IL App (1st) 231856, more persuasive. The defendant in that case challenged

his detention order by arguing that the State improperly relied on, and the court improperly

considered his criminal history where the State failed to tender his criminal record prior to the

detention hearing. Id. ¶ 36. This court found that, although the State failed to produce defendant’s

criminal history, defendant failed to point to any specific language in the Code that suggests that

the circuit court is precluded from considering defendant’s criminal history. Id. ¶ 40. Instead, we

pointed to section 6.1(f)(2) of the Code, which provides that evidence at a detention hearing may

be presented “by way of proffer based upon reliable information” and section 6.1(f)(5), which

provides that the “rules concerning the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to

the presentation and consideration of information at the hearing.” Id. We concluded that under

these sections, there was no error where the defendant did not claim that the State proffered an

inaccurate version of his criminal history or that the history was unreliable. Further, the State’s

failure to provide defendant with a copy of his criminal history resulted in no prejudice where

defendant’s counsel demonstrated a proficient knowledge of his criminal history at his pretrial

release hearing. Id. ¶ 41.

¶ 33    We find that there was no prejudice in this case. While the State did not produce any police

reports relating to defendant’s prior offenses, unlike in Mezo and Davis, the State did timely tender

to defendant a copy of his criminal history. This history set forth with some detail defendant’s

arrests and convictions which were part of the State’s proffer to the court. The criminal history

                                               - 12 -
No. 1-23-2400B

included defendant’s charges for battery, noting that the charges involved bodily harm, and assault.

The CPD rap sheet also provided the locations where those incidences took place, which were also

part of the State’s proffer. Additionally, defendant’s pretrial assessment indicated that defendant

had three prior violent convictions and had a “violence flag.”

¶ 34   And as we recognized in Davis, a court may consider a proffer based on reliable

information under section 6.1(f)(2). Defendant does not argue that the State’s proffer as to his

criminal history, including the detail, which was not included in his criminal history, was in any

way inaccurate or unreliable. The proffer was consistent with the criminal history which had been

provided to defendant by way of the CPD rap sheet. As held in Davis, we find that the trial court

was not prevented from considering the State’s proffer relating to detail from police reports about

defendant’s prior crimes which were listed in the tendered criminal history.

¶ 35   Further, even if there was any error, without considering the detail from the prior police

reports, we would find the detention order was proper.

¶ 36   The State has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that, inter alia, the

defendant’s pretrial release poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or the

community, and less restrictive conditions would not avoid a real and present threat to the safety

of any person or the community and/or prevent the defendant’s willful flight from prosecution.

725 ILCS 5/110-2(a), 110-6.1 (West 2022). The Code provides a nonexclusive list of factors that

the circuit court may consider when making a determination that the defendant poses a real and

present threat to any person or the community, which include: (1) the nature and circumstances of

any offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence involving a weapon; (2)

the history and characteristics of the defendant; (3) the identity of any person to whom the

defendant is believed to pose a threat and the nature of the threat; (4) any statements made by or

                                               - 13 -
No. 1-23-2400B

attributed to the defendant, together with the circumstances surrounding the statements; (5) the age

and physical condition of the defendant; (6) the age and physical condition of the victim or

complaining witness; (7) whether the defendant is known to possess or have access to a weapon;

(8) whether at the time of the current offense or any other offense, the defendant was on probation,

parole, or supervised release from custody; and (9) any other factors including those listed in

section 110-5 of the Act. Id. 110-6.1(g).

¶ 37   Appeals of bail orders under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(c)(1) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023)

have historically been reviewed using an abuse of discretion standard. People v. Inman, 2023 IL

App (4th) 230864, ¶ 10 (citing People v. Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253, ¶ 9). While Illinois

Supreme Court Rule 604(h) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023) provides a new procedure for these types of

appeals considering the changes made to the Code by the Act, “the Act neither mandates nor

suggests a different standard of review.” Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11. There is some

debate among the appellate districts concerning the appropriate standard of review with respect to

appeals under Rule 604(h). See People v. Herrera, 2023 IL App (1st) 231801, ¶¶ 22-24 (observing

split between districts regarding abuse of discretion and manifest weight of the evidence standard

under the Act). While we would affirm under either standard, we conclude that a circuit court’s

ultimate decision to detain or not is subject to review for an abuse of discretion (Inman, 2023 IL

App (4th) 230864, ¶ 10 (citing People v. Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253, ¶ 9)), while a circuit

court’s factual determinations are reviewed under the manifest weight standard (People v.

Rodriquez, 2023 IL App (3d) 230450, ¶ 8; People v. Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶ 12).

¶ 38   An abuse of discretion occurs where the court’s judgment is fanciful, arbitrary, or

unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would agree with the court’s position. Simmons, 2019

IL App (1st) 191253, ¶ 9. In conducting this review, we will not substitute the circuit court’s factual

                                                - 14 -
No. 1-23-2400B

and credibility findings with our own. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11. “A finding is

against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or if

the finding itself is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented.” People v.

Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322, 332 (2008).

¶ 39   In finding that defendant posed a danger to the community, the court relied on the “horrific”

nature of the incident, defendant’s criminal history, and the violence flag in his pretrial assessment.

In its proffer, the State informed the circuit court that the charges stemmed from an incident in

which defendant, unprovoked, picked up a metal object from the ground and randomly struck a

pedestrian in the back of the head. This incident occurred on a public street in the middle of the

day. As a result of defendant’s violent and surprise attack the victim suffered severe injuries

including, multiple face fractures, lacerations to his chin and scalp, an abrasion to his eye, a broken

jaw, and lost teeth. The victim’s face has been permanently disfigured. As to defendant’s

background, not including those details in the police reports, the State proffered that he had been

arrested 57 times as an adult and had several misdemeanor convictions. The rap sheet indicated

that his prior history included charges for battery involving bodily harm and assault charges. The

rap sheet demonstrated that these earlier incidents took place in similar public and populated

locales. The State provided sufficient clear and convincing evidence aside from the details in the

police reports which were not tendered that defendant poses a real and imminent danger to the

community.

¶ 40   As to the issue of whether there were any conditions which could mitigate the threat posed

by defendant to the community, defendant’s criminal history showed that he repeatedly committed

criminal offenses, had recently violated probation, and had failures to appear. The court

specifically found that electronic home monitoring would not protect the public in that there are

                                                - 15 -
No. 1-23-2400B

many “shortcomings” with electronic home monitoring and it can be violated in so many ways.

The court concluded that only detention could mitigate the real and present danger presented by

defendant. See People v Whitaker, 2024 IL App (1st) 232009 (electronic home monitoring is not

an infallible method of preventing harm to public safety).

¶ 41   Based on the proffered evidence, not considering the details from the alleged prior police

reports, the circuit court’s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. And we

find that the determination that defendant should be detained pretrial was not an abuse of

discretion. As a result, defendant was not prejudiced.

¶ 42   For these reasons, we affirm the decision of the circuit court which granted the State’s

petition to deny defendant’s pretrial release.

¶ 43   Affirmed.

¶ 44   JUSTICE OCASIO, specially concurring:

¶ 45   I agree with the majority’s decision with the exception of the discussion of the standard for

reviewing the trial court’s ultimate findings in appeals from detention orders. Supra ¶¶ 37-38, 41.

Given the significance of the right at stake at a detention hearing, de novo review of the trial court’s

ultimate findings is appropriate when, as is usually the case, they do not involve determinations of

historical fact. See People v. Whitaker, 2024 IL App (1st) 232009, ¶¶ 79-138 (Ellis, J. concurring).

                                                 - 16 -