People v. Stewart

NOTICE 2024 IL App (4th) 230839-U
This Order was filed under
FILED
NO. 4-23-0839 January 10, 2024
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-Appellant, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) Rock Island County
ERIC L. STEWART, ) No. 23CF591
Defendant-Appellee. )
) Honorable
) Frank R. Fuhr,
) Judge Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Zenoff and DeArmond concurred in the judgment.

ORDER
¶1 Held: The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant pretrial release
with enumerated conditions.

¶2 The State appeals the Rock Island County circuit court’s September 19, 2023,

order granting defendant, Eric L. Stewart, pretrial release pursuant to article 110 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Procedure 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). In its memorandum on appeal, the State asserts the court erred by finding (1) the

conditions it imposed could mitigate the danger posed by defendant to the safety of people in the
community and (2) the conditions of release would reasonably ensure defendant’s appearance at

later hearings and prevent defendant from being charged with another offense. We affirm.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 On July 31, 2023, the State charged defendant with two counts of aggravated

driving under the influence (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(1)-(2), (d)(1)(C) (West 2022)). Both

counts alleged defendant was involved in a motor vehicle collision with Samir Khan resulting in

great bodily harm to Khan, including fractures to his pelvis, arm, ribs, and scapula. Count I

alleged defendant drove with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, and count II alleged

defendant drove while under the influence of alcohol. (The State later amended the charges to

reflect the correct spelling of defendant’s last name.) That same day, the circuit court set

defendant’s bond at $75,000, requiring a deposit of 10%. Defendant did not post bond and

remained in detention.

¶5 On September 11, 2023, defendant filed a motion for pretrial release pursuant to

section 110-7(b)(1) of the Procedure Code (725 ILCS 5/110-7.5(b)(1) (West 2022)), calling for

the circuit court to immediately release him on the condition he appear before the court as

ordered, submit himself to the orders of the court, not violate any criminal statute, and surrender

all firearms. Three days later, the State filed a verified petition to deny defendant pretrial release

under section 110-6.1 of the Procedure Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)). The State

alleged defendant was charged with qualifying offenses, and defendant’s pretrial release posed a

real and present threat to the safety of any persons or the community. See 725 ILCS 5/110-

6.1(a)(6.5)(C) (West 2022)). In support of its petition, the State further alleged defendant’s

disinterest in alcohol treatment and “untreated alcohol issues *** render the defendant a real and

present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community.” The State’s factual basis

-2-
was the following. On July 31, 2023, police officers were dispatched to an incident involving a

bicyclist being struck by a car. Defendant was the driver of the car and was making a turn when

he thought he had run over some traffic cones. When he realized what happened, he stopped his

vehicle and remained at the scene. According to defendant, the bicyclist came out of nowhere.

Defendant stated he had two bottles of Bud Light beer at his residence before leaving to go to his

girlfriend’s home. Defendant agreed to participate in field sobriety tests. After his performance

on those tests, the police arrested him for DUI and transported him to the hospital for a blood

draw. The victim was also transported to the hospital for treatment for his broken ribs, pelvis,

arm, and scapula. Officers later learned the victim was transported to Iowa City, Iowa, for

surgery.

¶6 On September 19, 2023, the circuit court held a detention hearing. The State

noted it had tendered the police reports in its possession. It repeated the information in its

petition for detention and noted defendant had two prior domestic batteries in Scott County and

previous assault and public intoxication charges. Moreover, during his pretrial bond report

interview, defendant stated he was not interested in alcohol treatment. Thus, the State asserted

defendant’s untreated alcohol issues along with the potential for him to commit further DUIs

made him a threat to the community and supported its claim defendant should be detained on the

detainable offenses. It further argued his previous crimes involved violence and the least

restrictive alternative would be to detain him until trial.

¶7 Defense counsel noted the domestic abuse convictions were in Iowa and for

assaults which did not involve touching. He further argued the results of defendant’s blood test

were not back yet, and thus it is unknown whether defendant was intoxicated. Defense counsel

also pointed out defendant was 43 years old, remained at the scene, and had no prior DUIs.

-3-
Defendant scored a three on his risk assessment and works full-time. Additionally, defense

counsel argued the circuit court could consider a multitude of conditions short of detaining

defendant. Counsel noted the court could require defendant to obtain an alcohol evaluation,

participate in alcohol treatment, not consume alcohol, and not drive a vehicle. When asked by

the court, defendant stated he was willing to not go to places that primarily serve alcohol while

on pretrial release.

¶8 At the conclusion of the parties’ arguments, the circuit court denied the State’s

verified petition and granted defendant’s request for pretrial release. The court found aggravated

DUI was a detainable offense, but it was difficult to say whether or not the proof was evident and

the presumption great he committed a qualifying offense without the blood test results.

However, even if that was proven, the court believed there were conditions that could be placed

on defendant without continuing to detain him. The court, the parties, and the court services

officer discussed the proper conditions that should be imposed on defendant. The conditions

required defendant to do the following: (1) appear in court, (2) follow orders of the court, (3) not

violate any criminal statute, (4) notify the clerk of court of any address change, (5) report to the

Rock Island court services, (6) refrain from possessing a firearm or dangerous weapon,

(7) refrain from entering any business that has the primary purpose of selling alcohol, (8) not

indulge in any intoxicating substances, (9) be fitted with a global positioning system (GPS)

device, (10) undergo an alcohol evaluation and treatment, (11) have no contact with Khan, and

(12) not go outside Rock Island or Scott Counties.

¶9 That same day, the State filed a timely notice of appeal under Illinois Supreme

Court Rule 604(h)(2) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023). In the notice of appeal, the State left the relief

requested lines blank and only checked boxes. The checked boxes asserted the circuit court

-4-
erred by (1) not finding the State showed by clear and convincing evidence that the presumption

was great or the proof was evident defendant committed the charged offenses, (2) not finding the

State showed by clear and convincing evidence defendant posed a real and present threat to any

person or the community, (3) not finding the State showed by clear and convincing evidence that

no condition of release or combination thereof could mitigate the danger posed by defendant to

any person or the community, and (4) finding the conditions of release would reasonably ensure

defendant’s appearance at later hearings and prevent defendant from being charged with another

offense. This court has jurisdiction of the State’s appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule

604(h)(1)(iv) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023).

¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 11 We initially comment on the delay in the issuance of this order. As a matter

addressing an order denying a petition to deny pretrial release, this case is subject to expedited

disposition under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(5) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023). Under Rule

604(h)(5), “[a]fter the appellant has filed the Notice of Appeal, supporting record, and any

memorandum and the time for filing any response and memorandum has expired, the Appellate

Court shall consider and decide the appeal within 14 days, except the court may extend the

deadline for good cause.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)(5) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023). Although every effort

was made to comply with the deadline under Rule 604(h)(5), due to concerns among the panel

members requiring additional time, we find good cause for issuing our decision after the 14-day

deadline.

¶ 12 On appeal, defendant did not file a responsive memorandum. Regardless, as our

supreme court has noted, the two most important tasks of an appellate court panel when

beginning the review of a case are to ascertain its jurisdiction and determine which issue or

-5-
issues, if any, have been forfeited. People v. Smith, 228 Ill. 2d 95, 106, 885 N.E.2d 1053, 1059

(2008). As such, we address the State’s notice of appeal in this case, which did not list the relief

requested and consisted of only checked boxes for the grounds for relief. The notice did not

contain any additional information. We recognize Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(2) (eff.

Sept. 18, 2023) provides “[t]he Notice of Appeal shall describe the relief requested and the

grounds for the relief requested.” However, reviewing courts have found the noted deficiencies

in the State’s notice of appeal were not jurisdictional. People v. Presley, 2023 IL App (5th)

230970, ¶ 26; People v. Wetzel-Connor, 2023 IL App (2d) 230348-U, ¶¶ 17-18. Moreover, we

find noncompliance with Rule 604(h)(2) does not justify dismissal of the appeal. Here, the

notice of appeal was sufficient to put defendant on notice of what the State was appealing, and

the State did file a memorandum explaining its contentions of error.

¶ 13 As to the merits of the appeal, the circuit court may deny a defendant pretrial

release only if, upon verified petition, the State proves by clear and convincing evidence at a

detention hearing, in pertinent part, (1) the proof is evident or the presumption great the

defendant committed a detainable offense, (2) the defendant poses a threat to the safety of the

community or any person in the community, and (3) no combination of conditions can mitigate

the threat to the safety of the community. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a), (e)(1)-(3) (West 2022).

Moreover, section 110-5(a) of the Procedure Code (725 ILCS 5/110-5(a) (West 2022)) sets forth

the matters to be considered in determining (1) which conditions of pretrial release, if any, will

reasonably ensure the defendant’s appearance as required or the safety of any person or the

community and (2) the likelihood of the defendant’s compliance with all the conditions of

pretrial release. Section 110-5(b) of the Procedure Code (725 ILCS 5/110-5(b) (West 2022))

further allows the court to use a regularly validated risk assessment tool to aid in its

-6-
determination of appropriate conditions of release as provided under section 110-6.4 (725 ILCS

5/110-6.4 (West 2022)). The State has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence any

condition of pretrial release is necessary. 725 ILCS 5/110-2(b) (West 2022).

¶ 14 This court reviews whether the circuit court’s detention order was proper under

the abuse of discretion standard. 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.

¶ 15 The State first contends the circuit court erred by finding a combination of

conditions could mitigate the threat to the safety of the community posed by defendant. It argues

the circumstances of this case and defendant’s prior assault and intoxication charges demonstrate

defendant’s propensity to act in violent ways. However, based on the evidence presented, the

court could have found defendant had only one prior offense involving physical harm to the

victim and concluded defendant did not have a propensity to commit violent offenses.

Additionally, this was defendant’s first DUI charge, and thus the record contained no evidence

indicating defendant had a propensity to drive under the influence. Based on the evidence

presented at the detention hearing, we find the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by finding

conditions could be imposed to mitigate defendant’s threat to the safety of the community.

¶ 16 The State further argues the circuit court’s conditions of pretrial release do not

reasonably ensure the prevention of defendant committing subsequent offenses. Specifically, it

notes the court did not impose any conditions restricting or limiting defendant’s ability to operate

a motor vehicle. However, the State never requested such a condition as an alternative to

detention or when the conditions were discussed after the court found pretrial release was

-7-
appropriate. It is the State that bears the burden of proof on the necessity of a condition.

Moreover, the pretrial release report contained the results of the risk assessment tool, which

indicated defendant was a “low moderate” risk for committing another offense. As such, the

State has failed to show the circuit court abused its discretion in imposing conditions of pretrial

release for defendant.

¶ 17 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 18 For all these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Rock Island County circuit

court.

¶ 19 Affirmed.

-8-