NOTICE 2023 IL App (4th) 230937-U
This Order was filed under
FILED
NO. 4-23-0937 December 15, 2023
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
Carla Bender
not precedent except in the
IN THE APPELLATE COURT 4th District Appellate
limited circumstances allowed 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. ) Henry County
MICHAEL E. WORKHEISER, ) No. 23CF306
Defendant-Appellant. )
) Honorable
) James J. Cosby,
) Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Zenoff and Lannerd 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, Michael E. Workheiser, 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)), 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 (setting
the Act’s effective date as September 18, 2023). On appeal, defendant argues this court should
overturn the circuit court’s decision because 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 persons or the
community and (2) no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate that threat. We
affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On October 4, 2023, the State charged defendant with one count of unlawful
possession of a weapon by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2022)), one count of possession
of a defaced firearm (720 ILCS 5/24-5(b) (West 2022)), and one count of possession of
methamphetamine (720 ILCS 646/60(a) (West 2022)). That same day, the State filed a verified
petition to deny defendant pretrial release under section 110-6.1 of the Code (725 ILCS
5/110-6.1 (West 2022)), as amended by the Act. The State alleged defendant was charged with
qualifying offenses and defendant’s pretrial release posed a real and present threat to the safety
of persons or the community (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1), (6)(O) (West 2022)). In support of its
petition, the State provided the following factual basis:
“On 10/3/23 Blackhawk Area Task Force conducted a controlled
purchase near the Colony Inn in Bishop Hill using a [confidential
source (CS)]. CS had contacted [defendant], who indicated he
would sell 3 shotguns, a .22 Cal. rifle, and a short barrel .22 Cal.
Rifle for $1500. CS met with [defendant]. CS returned to agents
[and] indicated [defendant] sold him 2 short barrel shotguns, 1
pump action shotgun, .22 Cal. rifle with a high capacity magazine,
and a short barrel .22 Cal. rifle. The high capacity magazine had 23
rounds of .22 Cal. ammunition inside. Traffic stop conducted on
[defendant]’s vehicle. .8g of methamphetamine located on
[defendant]’s person and field tested positive. .22 caliber bolt
-2-
action pistol CS bought from [defendant] had the manufacturer’s
serial number removed.”
The State also provided additional grounds for which defendant should be denied pretrial release.
The State noted defendant had been released from the Henry County jail on October 2, 2023, was
currently serving a term of probation in Henry County case No. 22-CF-216 for aggravated
battery, and had pending charges for possession of a controlled substance in Henry County case
No. 23-CF-188.
¶5 At the detention hearing, the State asked the circuit court to consider the
information contained in its verified petition as well as the contents of the pretrial investigation
report. The State emphasized defendant’s “violent criminal history involving multiple victims”
and the fact defendant sold multiple guns to a confidential source one day after being released
from custody. The State also noted its concern for the safety of the confidential source and
defendant’s ability to comply with pretrial conditions.
¶6 Defense counsel argued defendant had a strong support network and “a job lined
up that he would be able to work” and use to financially support his children. Counsel asserted
defendant would reside with his parents and had expressed interest “in a rehab program through
Bridgeway.” Defendant’s mother arranged appointments “so that as soon as he was released, he
would be able to get that mental health evaluation and get the anger management evaluation.”
Finally, counsel noted defendant took his court obligations seriously and attended all his required
court dates and appointments. Counsel did not believe there was anyone identifiable who might
be threatened by defendant and noted defendant did not use or brandish any firearms in the
commission of the present offenses. Rather, defendant was attempting to rid himself of them.
-3-
¶7 In determining whether defendant should be released from pretrial detention, the
circuit court stated it considered the proffered evidence, the contents of the State’s petition, and
the pretrial investigation report. The court noted defendant’s history of violence, including
convictions for aggravated battery, aggravated assault, domestic battery, and aggravated
domestic battery “where the aggravating factor was strangling.” The court also pointed out
defendant’s score of “12” on the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment which was “two short of the
maximum score that can be reached for that assessment tool.” Defendant also allegedly
committed the present offenses “one day after being released from jail while on probation and
*** pre-trial release on a pending felony case.” The court further found the community
“threatened by a convicted felon illegally possessing firearms and then selling them [i]n an
illegal fashion on the street, including a defaced firearm.” As a result, the court denied defendant
pretrial release and granted the State’s petition, concluding,
“[T]he State has shown by clear and convincing evidence that
[defendant]’s pre-trial release should be denied, that the
presumption is great and the proof is evident that the defendant has
committed a qualifying offense, that he poses a real and present
threat to the safety of any person *** or the community, and there
are no conditions because he’s not supposed to possess a firearm,
he hasn’t been able to possess a firearm for 12 years, he’s on
probation subject to conditions right now, and *** he scored
almost off the charts on the one assessment tool that is available.”
-4-
¶8 After the circuit court entered its written order denying defendant pretrial release,
defendant filed his notice of appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(1)(iii) (eff. Sept.
18, 2023).
¶9 This appeal followed.
¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 11 On November 16, 2023, the Office of the State Appellate Defender, defendant’s
appointed counsel on appeal, filed a notice with this court indicating it was not filing a Rule
604(h) memorandum. Thus, we examine the arguments set forth in defendant’s notice of appeal.
¶ 12 According to defendant’s notice of appeal, the State failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person or the
community based on the facts of this case. Defendant explained he “has not made any threats to
the confidential informant and has not otherwise displayed any threatening behavior or
sentiments towards any specific person. None of the facts in this case allege or infer that the
defendant is personally a threat to any person or to the community.”
¶ 13 Defendant also argued the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence
that no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the real and present threat
defendant posed to the safety of any person or the community based on the facts of this case.
According to defendant:
“The evidence presented at the detention hearing *** suggests that
the defendant would comply with court orders. He had scheduled
required evaluations. He has not failed to appear for court. He
keeps in contact with his attorneys. He has a strong, local support
-5-
system. The Court did not consider pre-trial release conditions
such as no contact with the confidential informant or house arrest.”
¶ 14 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.
¶ 15 Before denying pretrial release, the State must prove by clear and convincing
evidence “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 “no condition or
combination of conditions set forth in subsection (b) of Section 110-10 of this Article can
mitigate (i) the real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community.”
725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(2), (3)(i) (West 2022). Factors a circuit court may consider in
determining whether a defendant poses a real and present threat include:
“(1) The nature and circumstances of any offense charged,
including whether the offense is a crime of violence, involving a
weapon, or a sex offense.
(2) The history and characteristics of the defendant including:
(A) Any evidence of the defendant’s prior criminal history
indicative of violent, abusive or assaultive behavior, or lack of
-6-
such behavior. ***
(B) Any evidence of the defendant’s psychological,
psychiatric or other similar social history which tends to indicate a
violent, abusive, or assaultive nature, or lack of any such history.
(3) The identity of any person or persons to whose safety the
defendant is believed to pose a threat, and the nature of the threat.
(4) Any statements made by, or attributed to the defendant,
together with the circumstances surrounding them.
(5) The age and physical condition of the defendant.
(6) The age and physical condition of any victim or complaining
witness.
(7) Whether the defendant is known to possess or have access to
any weapon or weapons.
(8) Whether, at the time of the offense or any other offense or
arrest, the defendant was on probation, parole, aftercare release,
mandatory supervised release or other release ***.
(9) Any other factors *** deemed by the court to have a reasonable
bearing upon the defendant’s propensity or reputation for violent,
abusive, or assaultive behavior, or lack of such behavior.” 725
ILCS 5/110-6.1(g) (West 2022).
¶ 16 Here, we find the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
defendant pretrial release. Defendant ignores the proffered fact that he was arrested in this case
“one day after being released from jail while on probation and *** pre-trial release on a pending
-7-
felony case.” The court noted the nature of the offenses as well as the threat posed by a
“convicted felon illegally possessing firearms and then selling them [i]n an illegal fashion on the
street, including a defaced firearm.” Further, the court pointed out defendant’s history of
violence, including his previous convictions for aggravated battery, aggravated assault, domestic
battery, and aggravated domestic battery “where the aggravating factor was strangling.”
Defendant also scored a “12” on the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment, which was “two short of
the maximum score that can be reached for that assessment tool.” As a result, defendant’s
arguments that the court abused its discretion by denying him pretrial release because he was not
a threat and because the court could have imposed conditions to mitigate the threat are meritless.
See Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253, ¶ 9.
¶ 17 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 18 For all these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
¶ 19 Affirmed.
-8-