Court Opinion

ID: 9952936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 22:03:52.196966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:33.530735
License: Public Domain

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).

                                        2024 IL App (3d) 230785-U

                                  Order filed March 20, 2024
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                  IN THE

                                   APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                            THIRD DISTRICT

                                                    2024

      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF             )     Appeal from the Circuit Court
      ILLINOIS,                              )     of the 12th Judicial Circuit,
                                             )     Will County, Illinois,
            Plaintiff-Appellee,              )
                                             )     Appeal No. 3-23-0785
            v.                               )     Circuit No. 22-CF-388
                                             )
                                             )
      KENNEDY T. SMITH,                      )     Honorable
                                             )     Vincent F. Cornelius,
            Defendant-Appellant.             )     Judge, Presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

            JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the judgment of the court.
            Justice Davenport concurred in the judgment.
            Presiding Justice McDade dissented.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                 ORDER

¶1          Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s petition to deny
                  pretrial release.

¶2          Defendant, Kennedy T. Smith, appeals the trial court’s decision to deny him pretrial

     release. We affirm.

¶3                                         I. BACKGROUND
¶4          Defendant, Kennedy T. Smith, was indicted on April 7, 2022, with first degree murder (720

     ILCS 5/9-1(a)(3) (West 2022)), attempted armed robbery (id. §§ 8-4(a), 18-2(a)(2)), and

     obstructing justice (id. § 31-4(a)(1), (b)(1)). Defendant’s bond was set at $1 million, but defendant

     remained in custody. The docketing statement indicates that defendant filed a motion seeking

     pretrial release. In response, the State filed a verified petition to deny pretrial release, alleging

     defendant was charged with a forcible felony, and his release posed a real and present threat to the

     safety of any person, persons, or the community under section 110-6.1(a)(1.5) of the Code of

     Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1.5) (West 2022)).

¶5          After a couple of defense continuances, a hearing was held on the petition on December

     14, 2023. The trial court reviewed the State’s proffer. After the hearing, the court granted the

     State’s petition, finding that it met its burden by clear and convincing evidence.

¶6                                              II. ANALYSIS

¶7          On appeal, defendant challenges the court’s detention decision. Defendant’s notice of

     appeal checked boxes asserting that the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and

     convincing evidence that (1) the proof was evident or the presumption great that he committed the

     offenses charged, (2) he posed a real and present threat to the safety of any persons or the

     community, based on the specific, articulable facts of the case, and (3) there were no conditions

     that could mitigate any threat he posed to the safety of others or his willful flight. He also checked

     a fourth box indicating that he was challenging the trial court’s determination that no conditions

     would reasonably ensure his appearance for later hearings or prevent him from being charged with

     a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. Other than checking these boxes, defendant made

                                                       2
     no additional arguments in support of his contentions. Nor did defendant file a supplemental

     memorandum in support of his appeal.1

¶8           We consider factual findings for the manifest weight of the evidence, but the ultimate

     decision to grant or deny the State’s petition to detain is considered for an abuse of discretion.

     People v. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. Under either standard, we consider whether

     the court’s determination is arbitrary or unreasonable. Id.; see also People v. Horne, 2023 IL App

     (2d) 230382, ¶ 19. We have reviewed the record in this case, notwithstanding the absence of any

     argument or citation by defendant, and find that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting

     the State’s petition to detain.

¶9           In ruling, inter alia, that “there are no conditions that can mitigate the real and present

     threat to the safety of persons or the community,” the trial court specifically referenced the

     proffered evidence which included the following. Defendant travelled from the State of Georgia

     where he resides to Illinois with codefendants to commit a robbery. Defendant was charged with

     first degree murder, in that he, acting alone or with one or more participants, committed or

     attempted to commit robbery, where another individual shot the victim with a firearm in

     furtherance of the crime. Defendant was also charged with attempted armed robbery, in that he,

     with other individuals, took a substantial step towards the commission, and while armed with

     firearms, attempted to take cannabis from the presence of the victim. Defendant, with other masked

     individuals, was shown on video entering a building with weapons where the victim was killed.

     The victim was paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair at the time of his death, where he was

     found slumped over and dead due to multiple gunshot wounds. Police recovered rifle shell casings

             1
              The State filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, based on defendant’s notice of appeal, which only
     checked boxes and did not provide any further information. We took the motion with the case, and we now
     deny the State’s motion to dismiss. This decision is filed beyond the 14-day period set forth in Rule
     604(h)(5) for good cause shown.
                                                         3
       and handgun casings in the hallway after the incident. Defendant thereafter went to a nearby

       Walmart to purchase spray paint to disguise the appearance of the getaway vehicle. Defendant was

       the driver of the vehicle when it was later apprehended in Georgia. Defendant admitted to police

       that he was responsible for attempting to hide the flight of the individuals and concealed that the

       crime occurred.

¶ 10          Given this proffered evidence, and the lack of any argument by defendant on appeal to

       explain how the trial court abused its discretion, it cannot be reasonably concluded that the trial

       court abused its discretion when it found “there are no conditions that can mitigate the real and

       present threat to the safety of persons or the community.”

¶ 11                                           III. CONCLUSION

¶ 12          The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.

¶ 13          Affirmed.

¶ 14          PRESIDING JUSTICE McDADE, dissenting:

¶ 15          I respectfully dissent from the majority decision. We review these cases to determine (1) if

       the State met its burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence to prove (a) defendant is

       charged with a qualifying offense which it is likely he committed, (b) that he posed a specific and

       present threat to identified persons or the community, and (c) that there were no conditions the

       court could impose to mitigate either defendant’s dangerousness or his flight risk and allow him

       the release for which he is presumed to be eligible (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1)-(3) (West 2022)),

       and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion when it reached the decision it did (see People

       v. Crawford, 2024 IL App (3d) 230668, ¶ 7)).

¶ 16          Turning to the specific questions before us, I agree with the majority’s decision to deny the

       State’s Motion to Dismiss. However, I would find the denial of pretrial release to be an abuse of

                                                        4
       the trial court’s discretion, reverse that decision, and remand for further proceedings that comply

       with the statute.

¶ 17           Relevant to the third element from section 110-6.1(e)(3), the majority notes that, in

       determining that there were no conditions that could mitigate defendant’s dangerousness, the trial

       court referenced defendant’s alleged acts giving rise to his charged offenses. The majority then

       goes on to state that, in light of these alleged acts, “it cannot be reasonably concluded that the trial

       court abused its discretion when it found [that the third element was met].” I disagree, and instead

       find the majority’s willingness to excuse the State from having to meet its burden on this element

       to be unreasonable.

¶ 18           Section 110-10 of the statute sets forth a non-exhaustive list of potential conditions of

       release. See 725 ILCS 5/110-10 (West 2022). Although, as the majority points out, the trial court

       recited the circumstances surrounding defendant’s charged offenses, the record discloses no

       discussion about specific conditions that addressed or satisfied the third element. The State

       presented nothing in compliance with the third statutory element. “Nothing” cannot be clear and

       convincing evidence. Further, it bears noting that by ignoring this statutory factor, the State and

       the courts are effectively rewriting the statute and usurping the prerogative of the legislature to

       make the law. In the absence of any statutorily compliant showing on this element, the trial court’s

       denial of pretrial release was arbitrary and its judgment to that effect was an abuse of discretion.

       That judgment should be reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

                                                          5