NOTICE 2023 IL App (4th) 230865-U
This Order was filed under
FILED
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is November 29, 2023
NO. 4-23-0865
not precedent except in the Carla Bender
limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate
under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) Henry County
STEVEN D. WALKER, ) No. 23CF292
Defendant-Appellant. )
) Honorable
) Colby G. Hathaway,
) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE LANNERD delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice DeArmond and Justice Knecht concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant pretrial release.
¶2 On September 21, 2023, the Henry County circuit court entered an order detaining
defendant, Steven D. Walker, pursuant to the dangerousness standard found in section 110-6.1 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Procedure Code) as amended by Public Acts 101-652,
§ 10-255 and 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023) (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)), commonly
known as the Pretrial Fairness Act. Defendant appeals, arguing this court should overturn the
circuit court’s decision because (1) the State failed to prove he poses a real and present threat to
the safety of any person or persons or the community and (2) the court erred in determining no
condition or combination of conditions would reasonably ensure his appearance for a later hearing
or prevent him from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. We affirm
the circuit court’s decision denying defendant pretrial release.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On September 20, 2023, the State charged defendant by information with violation
of an order of protection (720 ILCS 5/12-3.4(a)(1) (West 2022)) and driving while license revoked
(625 ILCS 5/6-303(a), (d-3) (West 2022)). According to the charging instrument, defendant was
served with an order of protection in Henry County case No. 23-OP-152, under which H.P. was a
protected party, and then knowingly violated the order of protection by having contact with H.P.
The information also alleged defendant had previously been convicted of domestic battery in
Henry County case No. 11-CM-513.
¶5 The State filed a verified petition to deny defendant pretrial release on September
20, 2023. The State indicated defendant was charged with violating an order of protection and his
pretrial release posed a real and present threat to the safety of a person or persons or the community
(725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(3) (West 2022)). The State’s petition provided the following factual basis
to support detaining defendant. A police officer conducting a traffic stop identified defendant as
the driver of the vehicle he stopped and H.P. as a passenger. Defendant was driving the vehicle on
a revoked driver’s license, which he had done on at least four prior occasions. According to the
State’s petition, when the order of protection was served on defendant, defendant said he would
have his sister “beat up” H.P. when the order of protection expired.
¶6 At the detention hearing on September 20, 2023, the State provided the circuit court
with information consistent with the verified petition to deny defendant pretrial release. In
addition, the State indicated defendant had a pending battery charge in Henry County and a 2018
conviction for aggravated battery in a public place. The State argued the information before the
court showed defendant was not concerned with the law and would not comply with the law. The
State also indicated it was concerned defendant would not appear at upcoming court dates because
-2-
he did not have a driver’s license.
¶7 In addition, according to the State’s proffer, when the arresting officer stopped
defendant for the traffic violation, defendant failed to correctly identify himself, did not comply
with the officer’s commands, and exhibited furtive movements throughout the stop. After the
officer removed defendant from the vehicle, defendant put his hand behind his back and began
reaching toward his waistline until the officer “went hands-on with him and told him to stop.” The
officer later identified H.P. as the passenger in the vehicle. After confirming defendant’s identity,
the officer confirmed that defendant’s driver’s license was revoked. The State also indicated
defendant had been served with the order of protection on September 7, 2023.
¶8 Defense counsel argued defendant had reliable transportation from his “Grandma
Annie” and the Henry County public transportation system to get to court. Further, defense counsel
noted defendant’s sister had not harmed H.P. and was not an immediate threat to her. According
to defense counsel, if the court established conditions requiring defendant to not have contact with
H.P., the court could mitigate any threat defendant posed to H.P. Defense counsel also argued
defendant was not with H.P. but was just driving H.P.’s car. Finally, defense counsel argued the
State had not proffered any evidence H.P. had been harmed at any time.
¶9 The circuit court indicated it had considered the proffered evidence, the pretrial
investigation report, defendant’s criminal history, and defendant’s score of “8” out of 14 on the
Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment. The court also noted defendant had been found with H.P., who
was the protected party in the active order of protection. In addition, the court noted defendant had
a history of violence, including prior convictions for domestic battery and attempt aggravated
battery. Defendant was also out on bond for a battery charge. With regard to possible conditions it
could impose on defendant to mitigate his dangerous behavior, the court stated the condition it
-3-
would like to impose, which would be to require defendant not to have contact with H.P., would
be futile based on defendant’s history. As a result, the court found the risk to H.P. could not be
mitigated by conditions imposed on defendant.
¶ 10 In the circuit court’s written order, it found the State charged defendant with a
detention-eligible offense and the proof was evident or the presumption great that defendant had
committed the detention-eligible offense. The court also found the State presented clear and
convincing evidence defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person or
persons or the community based on the specific articulable facts of this case and no condition or
combination of conditions could mitigate the real and present threat defendant’s release would
cause. Pursuant to section 110-6.1(h)(1) of the Procedure Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West
2022)), the court found less restrictive conditions could not assure H.P.’s safety because of
defendant’s history of disregarding court orders. As additional reasons for denying defendant
pretrial release, the court pointed to defendant’s prior convictions for violent offenses, a pending
battery charge, and his significant criminal record.
¶ 11 On September 22, 2023, defense counsel filed a timely notice of appeal pursuant to
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(2) (eff. Sep. 18, 2023). The circuit court appointed the Office
of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD) to represent defendant on appeal.
¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 13 According to defendant’s amended notice of appeal, the State failed to meet its
burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that defendant posed a real and present threat
to the safety of any person or persons or the community based on the facts in this case. According
to defendant:
“The Defendant was served a short-form notice of the [order of protection
-4-
] on 9/7/2023. At which time he stated he would have his sister ‘beat up’ the object
of the OP when the OP was over. Defendant was pulled over while driving the
vehicle of the object of the OP in a location not near either of their residences. At
the time of the stop and arrest there was no indication that any harm had come to
the object of the OP. At no point between the issuance of the OP and the present
has the Defendant’s sister approached or caused harm to the object of the OP.”
¶ 14 Defendant also argued the circuit court erred by determining no condition or
combination of conditions would reasonably ensure defendant’s appearance for later court
hearings or prevent him from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor.
Defendant’s explanation as to how the circuit court erred is limited to the following sentence:
“Defendant would be subject to incarceration if he were to violate the OP or a pre-trial release
condition.”
¶ 15 On October 20, 2023, OSAD filed a notice with this court indicating it was not
filing a Rule 604(h) memorandum. As a result, we examine the arguments presented in defendant’s
amended notice of appeal.
¶ 16 When reviewing a circuit court’s pretrial detention decision, we apply an abuse of
discretion standard of review. People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11. A circuit court
abuses its discretion when its 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.) Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 10.
¶ 17 Based on the facts in this case, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in
denying defendant pretrial release. Defendant ignores the proffered fact he was with H.P. when he
was arrested in this case after having been served with an order of protection for H.P. Based on
-5-
defendant’s history of violence and the fact one of his current charges was for violating an order
of protection, defendant’s arguments the circuit court abused its discretion by denying defendant
pretrial release because he was not a threat and because the court could have imposed conditions
to mitigate the threat are meritless.
¶ 18 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 19 For the reasons stated, we affirm the Henry County circuit court’s judgment and
remand the case for further proceedings.
¶ 20 Affirmed; cause remanded.
-6-