Court Opinion

ID: 9940330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 23:03:42.5242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:47.027560
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (2d) 230486-U
                                         No. 2-23-0486
                                 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. 23-CF-991
                                       )
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: (1) The State offered evidence to establish why no conditions of release could
             mitigate defendant’s alleged dangerousness; (2) trial court’s written findings, read
             in conjunction with its oral pronouncement, were sufficient to apprise defendant of
             the reasons for its ruling that no conditions of pretrial release could mitigate
             defendant’s dangerousness and to accommodate review under the Act; and (3) trial
             court’s finding that no conditions of pretrial release could mitigate defendant’s
             alleged dangerousness was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶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).
2024 IL App (2d) 230486-U

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,

2023).1 On appeal, defendant raises three principal issues. First, defendant argues that the State

failed to meet its burden of proof where it did not offer evidence or explain why no conditions of

pretrial release could mitigate his alleged dangerousness. Second, he argues that the trial court did

not make sufficient written findings to support the conclusion that no conditions of pretrial release

could mitigate his alleged dangerousness. Third, he argues that the trial court erroneously held that

he could not be released on electronic home monitoring because he is homeless. We affirm.

¶3                                      I. BACKGROUND

¶4     The limited record before us discloses that on May 13, 2023, defendant was involved in an

altercation with Leonard Hall at a train station in Elgin. Defendant was arrested the same day and

subsequently charged in Kane County case No. 23-CF-991 with three counts of armed violence

(class X), one count of aggravated battery causing great bodily harm (class 3), two counts of

aggravated battery on a public way (class 3), two counts of aggravated battery while using a deadly

weapon (class 3), one count of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (class 2), and one count

       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) 230486-U

of unlawful use of a weapon (class 4).2 Defendant was unable to post the cash bond imposed by

the trial court, so he remained incarcerated. 3

¶5     On October 17, 2023, defendant filed a “Motion for Reconsideration of Pretrial Release

Conditions” (Motion). The following day, the State filed a “Verified Petition to Deny Defendant

Pretrial Release” (Petition). In its Petition, the State contended that defendant’s pretrial release

should be denied pursuant to section 110-6.1(a)(1) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1) (West

2022)) (felony other than a forcible felony), section 110-6.1(a)(1.5) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-

6.1(a)(1.5) (West 2022)) (forcible felony), section 110-6.1(a)(6)(O) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-

6.1(a)(6)(O) (West 2022)) (unlawful use or possession of weapons by felons), and section 110-

6.1(a)(6)(W) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(6)(W) (West 2022)) (aggravated battery with a

deadly weapon other than by discharge of a firearm). As additional grounds upon which defendant

should be denied pretrial release, the State cited (1) defendant’s criminal history in Illinois, which

included convictions of attempt (first degree murder) (2006), disorderly conduct (2021), and

aggravated battery to a peace officer (2021) and (2) defendant’s criminal history in California,

which included convictions of reckless driving (2014), battery of a spouse (2017), and exhibiting

a deadly weapon (2018). The State also noted that defendant was on probation for his conviction

of aggravated battery to a peace officer when he was alleged to have committed the offenses at

issue in the present case. The State indicated that it would provide a proffer at the hearing on its

Petition pursuant to section 110-6.1(f)(2) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(f)(2) (West 2022)).

       2
           We do not cite the statutory provisions pursuant to which defendant was charged, because

the parties do not provide them and the charging instrument is not included in the limited record

filed on appeal.
       3
           The amount and conditions of the bond, if any, do not appear in the record.

                                                  -3-
2024 IL App (2d) 230486-U

¶6     The State attached to its Petition a sworn synopsis (Synopsis) drafted by the Elgin Police

Department. The Synopsis provides in relevant part as follows. On May 13, 2023, Hall was

sleeping on a bench at the train station. Because he had been previously stabbed, Hall keeps a pair

of scissors on his person for protection. Hall woke up upon hearing defendant kicking the lid of a

garbage can. Hall claimed that defendant was also speaking into a phone stating, “you got me out

here,” “why you kick me out,” and “I kill you.” Hall asked defendant to stop making noise.

Defendant approached Hall and continued to kick the garbage can lid. Hall then stood up and again

asked defendant to stop kicking the lid. Defendant pulled out a knife from his pocket and stated “I

kill you motherf***er.” After Hall saw defendant take out the knife, he displayed the pair of

scissors. Hall told the police that defendant swung the knife first. Hall unsuccessfully attempted to

dodge the knife and sustained a cut on his left hand. During the altercation, defendant exclaimed

approximately 10 times, “I’m going to kill you; you dead.” Hall then swung his scissors at

defendant, cutting him on the chin. Hall dialed 911. Defendant then walked away, dropping the

knife as he left. Due to the severity of the injury, Hall required surgery. Hall acknowledged that

he has mental health issues, including bipolar disorder.

¶7     The Synopsis further provided that during an interview at the police station, defendant

initially stated that although he had been attacked three or four times in the past, he was unarmed

at the time of the altercation with Hall. According to defendant, Hall approached him and told him

to be quiet or he would “chop his neck off.” Hall produced a knife and began swinging at him.

Defendant later stated, “Yeah, I got knife [sic]. I threw it away. Black knife. I stab [sic] him, yeah

I did. Because he stab [sic] me.” Defendant then advised that he stabbed Hall in the hands because

he thought he saw Hall holding a knife. Defendant further indicated that Hall pulled out a knife

first, which led to defendant producing his own knife and stabbing Hall. Defendant added that he

                                                -4-
2024 IL App (2d) 230486-U

felt threatened because of Hall’s size and that he did not remove his knife from his pocket until

after he was struck in the face.

¶8     On October 27, 2023, the trial court held a detention hearing. The State proceeded by

proffer and sought to admit the Synopsis. The State then argued that defendant was charged with

“numerous offenses” which are eligible for pretrial detainment, including armed violence,

aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, aggravated battery causing great bodily harm, and

unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. The State also referenced defendant’s criminal history

and noted that defendant was on probation at the time he allegedly committed the offenses at issue.

The State further noted that failure-to-appear warrants had been issued for defendant in October

2022 and April 2023. The State argued that defendant “stabbed essentially a stranger and had a

knife fight with a stranger that he instigated in a public area of a public train station.” The State

contended that defendant’s actions were “very concerning for public safety” and “pose a

significant threat to the safety of any person in the community in general *** as well as the named

victim.” Further, the State argued that defendant is not capable of following court orders as

evidenced by the facts that he “pick[ed] up this new offense” while on probation and “possessed a

weapon that he was prohibited from possessing as a convicted felon.”

¶9     In response, defense counsel argued that the Synopsis was insufficient to meet the State’s

burden of proof that defendant committed the charged offense. Defense counsel contended that

this was a “he said/he said” case. Both parties were injured and defendant reported that he was

“approached first and swung at first.” Defense counsel introduced a photograph of defendant’s

injury and noted that defendant had been hospitalized. Defense counsel also alleged that Hall had

“his own history of violence,” including convictions of domestic violence (2015), battery (2017

and 2019), and replica firearms and ammunition (2017). In addition, Hall was charged in another

                                                -5-
2024 IL App (2d) 230486-U

county with battery in 2023. Defense counsel also introduced a disclosure from Hall obtained by

the State. Defense counsel argued that the disclosure counters any argument that Hall is at risk or

in fear of his safety. In the disclosure, Hall requested that the State release defendant, opined that

defendant did not mean any harm, and indicated that defendant was not “in his right state of mind.”

Defense counsel indicated that both defendant and Hall were homeless. He asserted, “[i]t’s just a

completely different reality that these individuals live in from day to day.” Defense counsel then

noted that jail personnel were working to find housing or shelter for defendant if he were to be

released. Defense counsel reiterated that the State had not met its burden on the commission of the

offense, noting this would be a self-defense case. He also argued that the State did not meet its

burden of establishing that defendant poses a real and present threat to any person or the

community or that any condition or combination of conditions could not mitigate any such threat.

¶ 10   The trial court ordered defendant detained. The court determined that the State had proven

by clear and convincing evidence that the proof is evident or the presumption great that defendant

committed the offenses of armed violence and aggravated battery causing great bodily harm and

that defendant poses a real and present threat to the community based on the specific articulable

facts. The court found the Synopsis to be “very detailed” and noted that the offenses involved a

random attack on an unknown individual in a public place. As such, the court found that the public

at large would be endangered by defendant’s release. The court further concluded that no condition

or combination of conditions can mitigate the real and present danger posed by defendant. The

court based this latter finding on the fact that defendant “was on probation at this time, being

supervised on probation, and he still committed these offenses, or is alleged to have committed

these offenses.”

                                                -6-
2024 IL App (2d) 230486-U

¶ 11   The trial court entered a preprinted detention order on the same day of the hearing. On the

form, the court checked boxes to indicate that it found by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the

proof is evident or the presumption great that defendant committed a detainable offense pursuant

to section 110-6.1(a) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a) (West 2022)); (2) defendant poses a real

and present threat to the safety of any persons or the community at large; and (3) no condition or

combination of conditions set forth in section 110-10(b) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-10(b) (West

2022)) can mitigate the real and present threat to any persons or the community at large. The court

further explained in the written order that its finding that defendant committed a detainable offense

is based on “clear and convincing evidence of non-probationable felonies.” Its finding that

defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any persons or the community is based

on “random attack in public with a deadly weapon shows defendant to be erratic and unpredictable

and dangerous,” defendant was on probation for a class two aggravated battery to a police officer,

and defendant had a prior attempt (first degree murder) conviction. Finally, the court’s finding that

less restrictive conditions would not assure safety to the community is based on the fact that

defendant was “[o]n probation—failed to comply with terms—homeless so EHM [electronic home

monitoring] unavailable.” On November 9, 2023, defendant filed a form notice of appeal. The

Office of the State Appellate Defender was appointed to represent defendant in this appeal and

filed a memorandum in support thereof. The State subsequently filed a memorandum in opposition

to the appeal.

¶ 12                                      II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13   The Act amended the Code by abolishing traditional monetary bail in favor of pretrial

release on personal recognizance or with conditions of release. 725 ILCS 5/110-1.5, 110-2(a)

(West 2022). In Illinois, all persons charged with an offense are eligible for pretrial release. 725

                                                -7-
2024 IL App (2d) 230486-U

ILCS 5/110-2(a), 110-6.1(e) (West 2022). Under the Code, as amended, a defendant’s pretrial

release may only be denied in certain statutorily limited situations (qualifying offenses). 725 ILCS

5/110-2(a), 110-6.1 (West 2022). For most of the qualifying offenses, upon filing a verified

petition requesting denial of pretrial release, the State has the burden to prove by clear and

convincing evidence that the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant has

committed the offense (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1) (West 2022)), that the defendant’s pretrial

release poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community (725

ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1)-(7), (e)(2) (West 2022)) or a high likelihood of willful flight to avoid

prosecution (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(8), (e)(3) (West 2022)), and that no condition or combination

of conditions can mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community

or the risk of the defendant’s willful flight from prosecution (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(3) (West

2022)). “Evidence is clear and convincing if it leaves no reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier

of fact as to the truth of the proposition in question.” Chaudhary v. Department of Human Services,

2023 IL 127712, ¶ 74.

¶ 14   We review a trial court’s decision to detain a defendant using a two-part standard of review.

We apply the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard to the trial court’s factual determinations,

including whether the proof is evident or the presumption great that a defendant has committed a

qualifying offense, whether a defendant poses a threat, and whether any conditions would mitigate

that threat. People v. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. A finding is contrary to the manifest

weight of the evidence only if a conclusion opposite that to the trial court’s is clearly apparent. In

re Jose A., 2018 IL App (2d) 180170, ¶ 17. The ultimate decision of whether a defendant should

be detained is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. An

abuse of discretion occurs only if no reasonable person could agree with the trial court. People v.

                                                -8-
2024 IL App (2d) 230486-U

Williams, 2022 IL App (2d) 200455, ¶ 52. Questions of law and the construction of statutes are

reviewed de novo. People v. Swan, 2023 IL App (5th) 230766, ¶ 16.

¶ 15    Before proceeding further, we note that defendant raised several arguments in his form

notice of appeal. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 606(d) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023) (prescribing form for notices of appeal

under article 110 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/art. 110 (West 2022)). First, defendant argued that the

State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the proof is evident

or the presumption great that he committed the offenses charged because the Synopsis was

insufficient to establish that he committed the offenses and he presented evidence that he acted in

self-defense. Second, defendant argued that the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear

and convincing evidence that he poses 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. Again, defendant

argued that the Synopsis was insufficient to support this element. He also claimed that Hall was

not in fear of his safety as evidenced by the disclosure obtained by the State. Defendant further

disputed that he was a danger to the community, asserting that he was provoked and merely

defended himself. Third, defendant argued that the State failed to meet its burden of proving by

clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate the real

and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, based on the specific

articulable facts of the case, or defendant’s willful flight. In support of this last argument defendant

contended that the court “failed to consider a no-contact order, a stay away order, or EHM.”

¶ 16    In his memorandum on appeal, defendant only addresses the trial court’s ruling with

respect to the third argument raised in the notice of appeal. Consequently, as to the arguments

defendant raised only in his notice of appeal, we do not reach them, because they were not also

raised in his memorandum on appeal. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(2) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023)

                                                 -9-
2024 IL App (2d) 230486-U

provides that an appellant either may stand on his or her notice of appeal or may, but is not required

to, file a memorandum. Further, although Rule 604(h), as amended by the Act, provides a new

procedure for pretrial release appeals, the long-standing principles in Illinois Supreme Court Rule

341 (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) and related case law regarding appeals still apply. See People v. Inman,

2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 12. Acknowledging these changes in the law and the foregoing long-

standing principles, the Fifth District recently held, in People v. Forthenberry, 2024 IL App (5th)

231002, ¶¶ 41-42, that if a memorandum is filed, it is the controlling document for identifying the

issues or claims on appeal, except in limited circumstances such as to determine jurisdictional

issues. In People v. Rollins, 2024 IL App (2d) 230372, ¶ 22, we adopted the approach set forth in

Forthenberry and held that the filing of a memorandum reflects that an appellant has elected to

abandon any arguments that were raised in his or her notice of appeal but not also pursued in the

memorandum. Accordingly, with limited exception, we will not reference the notice of appeal to

address arguments that are not also raised in the memorandum. Rollins, 2024 IL App (2d) 230372,

¶ 22.

¶ 17    Thus, in this case, we will address only the three issues identified in defendant’s

memorandum. Those issues are as follows. First, defendant argues that the State did not meet its

burden to show that no conditions of release can mitigate his alleged dangerousness. Second, he

argues that the trial court did not make sufficient written findings to support the conclusion that

no conditions of release could mitigate defendant’s dangerousness. Finally, he contends that the

trial court erroneously held that he could not be released on electronic home monitoring because

he is homeless.

¶ 18                                    A. State’s Evidence

                                                - 10 -
2024 IL App (2d) 230486-U

¶ 19   We first address defendant’s contention that the State did not meet its burden to show that

no conditions of release can mitigate his alleged dangerousness. According to defendant, the State

did not offer any evidence or explanation as to this element. We disagree.

¶ 20   The Act instructs that, in determining whether a specific threat could be mitigated through

the imposition of conditions of pretrial release, the trial court is to consider: (1) the nature and

circumstances of the offense charged, (2) the weight of the evidence against the defendant, (3) the

history and characteristics of the defendant, (4) the nature and seriousness of the real and present

threat to the safety of any person or the community that would be posed by the defendant’s release,

and (5) the nature and seriousness of the risk of obstructing or attempting to obstruct the criminal

justice process. 725 ILCS 5/110-5(a)(1)-(5) (West 2022). The history and characteristics of the

defendant include his or her “character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment,

financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past relating to drug or

alcohol abuse, conduct, *** criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court

proceedings” as well as “whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, [he or she] was on

probation, parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence

for any offense under federal law, or the law of this or any other state.” 725 ILCS 5/110-5(a)(3)(A)-

(B) (West 2022).

¶ 21   Although not expressly presented in support of a claim that no conditions of release can

mitigate defendant’s alleged dangerousness, the State’s proofs did address during the detention

hearing many of the statutory factors cited above. As to the nature and circumstances of the

offenses, the proffer showed (as the State argued) that defendant “stabbed essentially a stranger

and had a knife fight with a stranger that he instigated in a public area of a public train station.”

As to the history and characteristics of defendant, defendant’s criminal history included various

                                               - 11 -
2024 IL App (2d) 230486-U

offenses, including a 2006 attempt (first degree murder) conviction for which he was sentenced to

seven years in jail. In addition, defendant was on probation for aggravated battery to a peace officer

at the time he committed the offenses at issue and failure-to-appear warrants had been issued for

defendant in October 2022 and April 2023. There was also evidence from which it could be

concluded that defendant is not capable of following court orders as evidenced by the fact that he

was on probation at the time of this alleged offense. As to the nature and seriousness of the real

and present threat to the safety of any person or the community that would be posed by defendant’s

release, the evidence showed that, in stabbing a stranger at a public train station, defendant’s

actions (as the State put it) “were very concerning for public safety” and “pose a significant threat

to the safety of any person in the community in general *** as well as the named victim.”

¶ 22   In short, the evidence was sufficient. As such, we reject defendant’s claim that the State

did not offer any evidence or explanation as to why no conditions of release could mitigate

defendant’s alleged dangerousness.

¶ 23                                     B. Written Finding

¶ 24   Defendant also argues that the trial court did not make a clear record for appeal by entering

a written finding summarizing its reasons why no conditions of release could mitigate his alleged

dangerousness. See 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West 2022). According to defendant, the trial

court’s “quick notation” that he had been on probation and was homeless does not rise to the

standard set by the statute. In support of this argument, defendant relies principally on People v.

Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753.

¶ 25   In Stock, the trial court ordered that the defendant be detained pending trial and entered a

written order. In the space provided on the form to describe why no condition or combination of

conditions can mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community,

                                                - 12 -
2024 IL App (2d) 230486-U

the court simply described the charged offense, writing, “[t]he defendant shot a firearm at the

complaining witness.” Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶¶ 8, 20. On appeal, the reviewing court

held that this explanation was insufficient, reasoning that “[i]f the base allegations that make up

the sine qua non of a violent offense were sufficient on their own to establish this element, then

the legislature would have simply deemed those accused of violent offenses ineligible for release.”

Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶¶ 18, 20. Defendant argues that this case is similar to Stock. We

disagree. First, in Stock, the court found that “the trial court’s oral pronouncement did not contain

any such reasoning, either.” Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶ 20. Second, in this case, the trial

court did more than rely on the fact that a crime of violence had been committed. Its written order

provided that less restrictive conditions would not assure safety to the community based on the

following: “[o]n probation—failed to comply with terms—homeless so EHM unavailable.”

¶ 26   Moreover, in People v. Andino-Acosta, 2024 IL App (2d) 230463, ¶ 19, we held that in

assessing the sufficiency of a trial court’s findings, its written findings must be read in conjunction

with its oral pronouncements. Andino-Acosta, 2024 IL App (2d) 230463, ¶ 19. Turning to the

present case, in pronouncing its decision, the trial court stated that it considered the dangerousness

factors in section 110-6.1(g) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g) (West 2022)), including the

nature and circumstances of the offenses charged, defendant’s history and characteristics, and his

probation status. These are many of the same factors that the court considers in assessing whether

a specific threat could be mitigated through the imposition of conditions of pretrial release.

Compare 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g) (West 2022) (listing factors to be considered in determining

dangerousness) with 725 ILCS 5/110-5(a) (West 2022) (listing factors trial court is to consider in

determining which conditions of pretrial release will reasonably ensure the safety of any person or

the community). In particular, the court summarized the charges against defendant. It then noted

                                                - 13 -
2024 IL App (2d) 230486-U

that defendant’s criminal history includes a conviction of attempt (first degree murder) for which

he received a sentence of incarceration. The court considered that defendant was on probation for

aggravated battery to a police officer at the time he allegedly committed the offenses at issue and

that defendant possessed a weapon while allegedly committing the offenses with which he was

charged. The court described defendant’s alleged actions as “a random attack on an unknown

individual *** in a public place” and concluded that “the public at large is endangered by this

[d]efendant’s presence out of custody.” The court then concluded that defendant posed “a real and

present threat to the community based on the specific articulable facts from the record” and that

“no condition or combination of conditions of pretrial release can mitigate the real and present

danger, threat posed by this [d]efendant, and that no less restrictive conditions would avoid the

real and present threat posed by *** [d]efendant.” The court based its conclusion “on the fact that

[defendant] was on probation at this time, being supervised on probation, and he still committed

these offenses, or is alleged to have committed these offenses.” As noted above, in its written

findings, the court wrote that less restrictive conditions would not assure safety to the community

because defendant was “[o]n probation—failed to comply with terms—homeless so EHM

unavailable.”

¶ 27   Considering the trial court’s written findings in conjunction with its oral pronouncements,

we find that the purposes of the writing requirement were satisfied. The trial court’s oral ruling

was explicit and individualized, and read together with its written findings, was sufficient to

apprise defendant of the reasons for its ruling and to accommodate review under the Act.

Consequently, we find no reason to disturb the trial court’s decision on the basis that the trial

court’s written findings were insufficient.

¶ 28                                     C. Homelessness

                                              - 14 -
2024 IL App (2d) 230486-U

¶ 29   Finally, defendant contends that the trial court erroneously held that he could not be

released on electronic home monitoring because he is homeless. According to defendant, it is

“factually inaccurate” that electronic home monitoring cannot be arranged for him. He notes that

he had been working with jail personnel on housing or shelter options if released. He also contends

that it is contrary to the purpose of the Act because the inability of a defendant to pay for a

condition of release may not be used as a justification for pretrial detention. See 725 ILCS 5/110-

5(e) (West 2022). Defendant therefore argues that his inability to pay for housing or electronic

home monitoring is insufficient to order detention. Defendant further asserts that the State never

discussed electronic home monitoring. Defendant requests a remand for the court to reconsider the

conditions of release as required by the Act, including electronic home monitoring.

¶ 30   We agree with defendant that his inability to pay is not a factor in ruling out electronic

home monitoring. 725 ILCS 5/110-5(e) (West 2022). However, we read nothing in the trial court’s

order or in the hearing transcript that supports defendant’s claim that his inability to pay was the

impetus for concluding that electronic home monitoring would not to be feasible. We also agree

with defendant that his status as unhoused should not automatically rule out electronic home

monitoring. These points aside, however, and as set forth above, the record reveals that the State,

although not specifically addressing electronic home monitoring by name, referenced various

reasons why conditions of release would not work in this case. The State cited defendant’s prior

criminal history. It discussed the fact that defendant was on probation for aggravated battery to a

peace officer at the time of the instant offenses. The State noted that failure-to-appear warrants

had been issued for defendant in October 2022 and April 2023. The State argued that defendant’s

background demonstrated that he was not capable of following court orders. The State also asserted

that defendant’s actions raised community safety concerns as he stabbed a stranger in a public train

                                               - 15 -
2024 IL App (2d) 230486-U

station. The trial court had these reasons before it in concluding that the State proved by clear and

convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate the real and

present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, based on specific articulable

facts of the case. Considering the record before us, we cannot say that the trial court’s factual

finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Moreover, based on the trial court’s factual

findings, we conclude that its order denying defendant pretrial release did not constitute an abuse

of discretion.

¶ 31                                    IV. CONCLUSION

¶ 32   For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County.

¶ 33   Affirmed. Mandate to issue instanter.

                                               - 16 -