Court Opinion

ID: 9963321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 21:03:32.70046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:45.799045
License: Public Domain

NOTICE               2024 IL App (4th) 240202-U
  This Order was filed under
                                                                              FILED
                                         NO. 4-24-0202                       April 24, 2024
  Supreme Court Rule 23 and is                                               Carla Bender
  not precedent except in the                                            4th District Appellate
  limited circumstances allowed   IN THE APPELLATE COURT
                                                                               Court, IL
  under Rule 23(e)(1).
                                          OF ILLINOIS

                                      FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                        )      Appeal from the
           Plaintiff-Appellee,                              )      Circuit Court of
           v.                                               )      McLean County
CARLOS S. MOSLEY,                                           )      No. 24CF85
           Defendant-Appellant.                             )
                                                            )      Honorable
                                                            )      Scott Kording,
                                                            )      Judge Presiding.

                JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court.
                Justices Lannerd and Vancil concurred in the judgment.

                                            ORDER
¶1     Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion
             in denying defendant pretrial release.

¶2              Defendant, Carlos S. Mosley, appeals the circuit court’s order denying him

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

ILCS 5/art. 110 (West 2022)), hereinafter as amended by Public Act 101-652, § 10-255 (eff. Jan.

1, 2023), commonly known as the Pretrial Fairness Act (Act). See Pub. Act 102-1104, § 70 (eff.

Jan. 1, 2023) (amending various provisions of the Act); Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 52,

223 N.E.3d 1010 (setting the Act’s effective date as September 18, 2023).

¶3              On appeal, defendant argues the State failed to prove by clear and convincing

evidence (1) he posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community,
(2) no conditions could mitigate that threat or prevent his willful flight, and (3) the circuit court

erred in finding no conditions would ensure his appearance for later hearings or prevent him

from being charged with a subsequent offense. We affirm.

¶4                                       I. BACKGROUND

¶5             On January 22, 2024, the State charged defendant by information with two counts

of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (UPWF) (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2022)),

two counts of domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(1), (2) (West 2022)), and possession of

firearm ammunition without the requisite firearm owner’s identification (FOID) card (430 ILCS

65/2(a)(2) (West 2022)). On the same day, the State filed a petition to deny pretrial release, and

the circuit court conducted a detention hearing.

¶6             According to the verified arrest statement, officers discovered Estreya Cordova,

defendant’s paramour, in a common area outside defendant’s apartment. Cordova’s mouth, eyes,

and face were swollen, and her lip was bleeding. Cordova said defendant became upset when she

told him she would be moving to another state, and he punched her twice in the face. Defendant

then placed his hands around her throat and strangled her “for several seconds.” When officers

arrested defendant, he had an unloaded 9-millimeter handgun in one jacket pocket and a loaded

magazine in the other. Officers found a box containing 50 rounds of 9-millimeter ammunition in

defendant’s bedroom. Defendant was a convicted felon and did not have a valid FOID card.

¶7             The State proffered defendant had eight prior convictions, dating back to 1992,

including UPWF, possession of a firearm with a revoked FOID card, and driving under the

influence. Per the public safety assessment report, defendant scored a 3 out of 6 on the New

Criminal Activity Scale and a 2 out of 6 on the Failure to Appear Scale. The report

recommended defendant be released with pretrial monitoring.

                                                 -2-
¶8             Defense counsel proffered defendant was employed before his arrest, and he had

another place he could stay, separate from the apartment he shared with Cordova. Counsel noted

defendant neither used nor threatened to use his firearm during the altercation, the firearm was

unloaded, and the ammunition was in a separate pocket. Defendant’s criminal history included

no violent offenses, and his most recent conviction was in 2016, after which he successfully

completed “drug-court probation.” At the time of his arrest, defendant was not on parole or

probation, and he faced no pending charges.

¶9             The circuit court found the proof was evident or presumption great defendant

committed a detainable offense and posed a real and present threat to Cordova and the

community. The court considered defendant’s criminal history, noting many of his convictions

occurred over 20 years ago. The court observed the pretrial assessment recommended pretrial

release with monitoring, defendant was employed, and he previously completed drug court.

However, the court considered the violent nature of the alleged offense and that defendant

allegedly walked into the room where Cordova was with a handgun and ammunition in his

pockets. The court noted defendant’s prior convictions and lack of a FOID card prohibited him

from possessing firearms or ammunition, but he did so anyway. The court found defendant posed

a threat to the safety of Cordova and the community based on his conduct, including his

continued possession of firearms and ammunition.

¶ 10           The circuit court also found no conditions could mitigate the threat defendant

posed. The court noted defendant illegally possessed firearms three times after he was prohibited

from doing so. Based on defendant’s refusal to follow the law preventing him from possessing

firearms and ammunition, the court found defendant was unlikely to comply with any potential

conditions imposed in this case. The court further observed defendant did not abide by

                                               -3-
conditions imposed in his prior cases. The court granted the State’s petition and entered a no-

contact order between defendant and Cordova.

¶ 11           The circuit court entered a written order denying defendant pretrial release, which

noted defendant choked Cordova for several seconds and punched her in the face, causing

physical injuries. The order noted defendant, a convicted felon with no FOID card, had a 9-

millimeter handgun and ammunition in his coat pockets when he was arrested, and officers found

more ammunition in his bedroom. The order observed defendant “had at least 2 adjudications of

guilt for unlawful firearm possession offenses with prison time.” After the court entered its

written order, defendant filed his notice of appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule

604(h)(1)(iii) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023).

¶ 12           This appeal followed.

¶ 13                                      II. ANALYSIS

¶ 14           Defendant filed a notice of appeal utilizing the notice of appeal form in the Article

VI Forms Appendix to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 606(d) (eff. Dec. 7,

2023). The form lists several possible grounds for appellate relief and directs appellants to

“check all that apply and describe in detail.” Defendant checked the following grounds for relief:

(1) the State failed to prove he posed a threat to the safety of any person or the community,

(2) the State failed to prove that no combination of conditions could mitigate the threat he posed,

and (3) the circuit court erred in determining no combination of conditions would ensure his

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

Class A misdemeanor.

¶ 15           All criminal defendants are presumed eligible for pretrial release. 725 ILCS

5/110-6.1(e) (West 2022). Before a circuit court denies pretrial release, the State must prove by

                                                -4-
clear and convincing evidence (1) “the proof is evident or the presumption great that the

defendant has committed an offense listed in subsection (a),” (2) “the defendant 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,” and (3) “no condition or combination of conditions *** can

mitigate *** the real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community.”

725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1), (2), (3)(i) (West 2022). Section 110-6.1 of the Code provides nine

factors the court may consider when assessing the real and present threat allegation. See 725

ILCS 5/110-6.1(g)(1)-(9) (West 2022). If the court determines the defendant should be denied

pretrial release, the court must make written findings summarizing the reasons for denying

pretrial release, including why less restrictive conditions would not avoid the danger posed by

the defendant to any person or the community. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West 2022).

¶ 16           We have held the determination of whether pretrial release should be granted or

denied is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See People v. Jones, 2023 IL App

(4th) 230837, ¶¶ 27, 30. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the circuit court’s decision is

arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable or where no reasonable person would agree with the position

adopted by the [circuit] court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Simmons, 2019 IL

App (1st) 191253, ¶ 9, 143 N.E.3d 833. Under this standard, a reviewing court will not substitute

its own judgment for that of the circuit court simply because it would have analyzed the proper

factors differently. People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11. Likewise, “we will not

substitute our own judgment for the trier of fact on issues regarding the weight of the evidence or

the credibility of witnesses.” People v. Vega, 2018 IL App (1st) 160619, ¶ 44, 123 N.E.3d 393.

¶ 17           Here, defendant has not shown the circuit court abused its discretion in finding the

State established by clear and convincing evidence he posed a real and present safety threat to

                                               -5-
Cordova and the community and that no condition or combination of conditions thereof could

mitigate the threat. Defendant first argues he is not a safety threat because he does not have a

history of domestic violence, he did not use a weapon during the altercation, the firearm in his

pocket was unloaded, and “there was no evidence presented that he intended to use the weapon

or had menaced or threatened anyone with the weapon.” However, the record shows the court

relied on the violent nature of the offense, defendant’s criminal history, and his access to

firearms in reaching its conclusions. See 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g)(1), (2), (7) (West 2022).

According to the State’s proffer, defendant punched Cordova twice in the face, causing her to

sustain injuries, and choked her for several seconds. Defendant has also repeatedly possessed

firearms despite being legally prohibited from doing so, including during the incident at issue.

We find the court’s dangerousness determination was not an abuse of discretion. See Jones, 2023

IL App (4th) 230837, ¶¶ 27, 30.

¶ 18           Second, defendant argues the State failed to prove no conditions could mitigate

the threat he posed because he “has been on a period of good behavior since 2016, where he

successfully completed a drug court sentence,” he has a separate address from Cordova, he was

willing to surrender his firearms, and the safety assessment recommended release with pretrial

monitoring. As the circuit court observed, defendant repeatedly failed to follow the law

prohibiting him from possessing firearms and ammunition. Defendant’s criminal history

included two convictions for illegally possessing a firearm, and his alleged conduct during the

incident at issue resulted in another such charge. Based on these facts, the court did not abuse its

discretion by finding no conditions could mitigate the threat defendant posed to Cordova and the

community, as the court reasonably concluded defendant would not abide by any conditions

imposed in this case. See Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253, ¶ 9

                                                -6-
¶ 19           Third, defendant argues the circuit court erred in determining no combination of

conditions could reasonably ensure his appearance at later hearings or prevent him from being

charged with a subsequent offense. While this finding is necessary to revoke a defendant’s

pretrial release pursuant to section 110-6(a) (725 ILCS 5/110-6(a) (West 2022)), it is not

required to detain a defendant under section 110-6.1 (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)).

Defendant was detained pursuant to section 110-6.1. Therefore, we need not address the merits

of this argument, as it cannot warrant reversal of the court’s detention determination.

¶ 20           The record shows the circuit court considered the appropriate factors when

finding defendant posed a safety threat to Cordova and the community. The court then properly

relied on defendant’s criminal history and repeated failures to comply with the law precluding

him from possessing firearms and ammunition to determine no condition or combination of

conditions could mitigate the threat. Defendant has failed to show otherwise. Thus, the court’s

decision was not arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, and no abuse of discretion occurred. Inman,

2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 10.

¶ 21                                   III. CONCLUSION

¶ 22           For all these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 23           Affirmed.

                                               -7-