NOTICE 2024 IL App (4th) 231074-U
This Order was filed under
FILED
NOS. 4-23-1074, 4-23-1075 cons. January 10, 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. ) Winnebago County
CLINT A. REED, ) Nos. 23DT440
Defendant-Appellant. ) 23CM2042
)
) Honorable
) Philip J. Nicolosi,
) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Cavanagh and Knecht 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, Clint A. Reed, appeals the circuit court’s order denying pretrial release
under article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/110-1 et seq.
(West 2022)), as amended by Public Act 101-652 (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 contends the court erred in finding no condition or
combination of conditions would reasonably ensure his appearance for later hearings or prevent
him from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. Within that
argument, defendant also claims the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the real and
present threat of his willful flight. On December 12, 2023, the Office of the State Appellate
Defender (OSAD) filed a notice in lieu of a Rule 604(h) memorandum (see Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)
(eff. Dec. 7, 2023)), and the State filed a memorandum in response on December 22, 2023. For
the following reasons, we affirm the court’s judgment.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On July 26, 2023, defendant was arrested and given several traffic citations for
driving with an expired license (more than one year) (625 ILCS 5/6-101 (West 2022)), driving
under the influence (DUI) (alcohol/intoxicating compound/drug) (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(5)
(West 2022)), operating a motor vehicle while registration suspended (625 ILCS 5/3-708 (West
2022)), and operating an uninsured motor vehicle (625 ILCS 5/3-707(a) (West 2022)).
¶5 After being arraigned on the same date, defendant’s bond was set at $5000 as a
recognizance bond and he was released. His bond conditions required him to appear at all court
dates, not violate any criminal statutes, not possess or consume alcohol, cannabis, or any
controlled substance unless prescribed, and obey all traffic laws. He was ordered to reappear in
court on August 22, 2023. When he failed to do so, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest and
bond was set at $5000, with 10% to apply. Defendant was arrested on September 23, 2023, and
appeared in court on September 25, 2023. He was again released, this time pursuant to the
provisions of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110 et seq. (West 2022)), with conditions requiring him not
to violate any criminal statute, to submit himself to the orders of the circuit court, and to reappear
in court on October 23, 2023, for a status/pretrial conference.
-2-
¶6 On October 4, 2023, the State filed a verified petition to revoke defendant’s
pretrial release under section 110-6(a) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6(a) (West 2022)), as
amended by the Act, alleging defendant committed a new offense while on pretrial release,
namely, criminal damage to property (720 ILCS 5/21-1(a)(1) (West 2022)), for which he was
charged on October 3, 2023. The State further alleged “[n]o condition or combination of
conditions of release would reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant for later hearings
or prevent the defendant from being charged with a subsequent felony or class A misdemeanor.”
See 725 ILCS 5/110-6(a) (West 2022). Based on the State’s petition, the circuit court entered an
order for detention pending a revocation hearing.
¶7 On October 6, 2023, defendant appeared with appointed counsel for a hearing on
the State’s petition. The State’s proffer included probable cause statements from the traffic arrest
and the incident leading to defendant’s most recent arrest for criminal damage to property. The
State noted defendant was uncooperative with the officers during the traffic stop—he either
refused or ignored their commands, he refused a field sobriety test at the scene, and he refused a
Breathalyzer and blood test later. Upon his release from custody, defendant was not to possess or
consume alcohol, cannabis, or other “illicit drugs,” and he was “not to violate any criminal
statutes of any jurisdiction.”
¶8 The proffer for the October 3, 2023, arrest indicated defendant’s girlfriend called
the police, claiming defendant was hitting her and her vehicle. She asked to meet the officers at a
different location, where she advised defendant had pushed and choked her and began damaging
her vehicle. Responding to the scene, officers observed multiple signs of recent damage to the
vehicle, and the victim said she wanted to press charges. Defendant was “intoxicated and
-3-
belligerent” and resisted multiple officers as they sought to take him into custody, leading
ultimately to the use of mace to subdue him.
¶9 The State argued defendant should be detained based upon a “verifiable threat.” It
noted defendant violated his existing bond by committing another criminal offense and
consuming alcohol. The State also referenced the allegations of physical abuse and damage to
the vehicle, as well as defendant’s combativeness with officers in both incidents. The State
argued the victim’s claim of being choked, along with asking to meet the officers at a different
location to report the crime, were evidence of her concern for her safety. The State also asserted
a threat to the community existed based on “multiple instances where defendant was intoxicated”
and “multiple instances where he is verbally and physically combative with police,” to the point
where he had to be maced. It contended defendant’s continued drinking and picking up new
charges showed he was a threat to the community and asked for him to be detained.
¶ 10 Defendant testified to his history of alcohol consumption, lack of substance abuse
treatment, and willingness to attend inpatient treatment and undergo random testing. On
cross-examination, defendant said he had never sought treatment before because he had “been in
the whole denial phase” and did not believe he had a problem. He said he had “been staying with
a friend, but after talking with my lawyer, I think that the rehab would be a better suit for me.”
¶ 11 The State tendered the pretrial services report and indicated defendant had been
“on probation in McHenry County for a battery/bodily harm” since January 2023. He also had a
“transportation/carry alcohol/liquor driver charge” from July 2022 in McHenry County and a
prior conviction for domestic battery from Clay County in August 2014, where he received “one
year probation and 15 days in jail.” The State referenced defendant’s probation in McHenry
County for a 2006 theft conviction, receiving “30 days jail, 30 days probation,” and “around the
-4-
same time, in McHenry County, he was given 75 days jail” on November 1, 2006, for
battery/makes physical contact. The State also noted he received an additional 200 days in jail
for either the same battery or another on November 1, 2006, in McHenry County and had been
given probation on December 22, 2005, in McHenry County for contributing to the delinquency
of a child.
¶ 12 The State argued for detention:
“So he’s currently on probation—according to the pretrial services
agreement, which isn’t perfect, he’s currently on probation for battery in
McHenry County. So if the standard is do we think that the defendant would pick
up more charges, then the answer is yes.
While on probation for a battery, he picks up a DUI and then follows it
up—while on probation in McHenry County and on pretrial release in Winnebago
County picks up charges for criminal damage to property where he’s alleged to
have committed violent actions against a vehicle as well as he’s resisting a peace
officer.
*** there are no conditions of pretrial release, I would argue, that do not
make it where the defendant cannot pick up another Class A misdemeanor.”
¶ 13 Noting the State’s burden was “clear and convincing evidence,” defendant’s
counsel pointed to his history with alcohol, with “multiple charges for alcohol and possession of
liquor by a minor.” He acknowledged defendant’s alleged violations of previous circuit court
orders, including his failure to appear previously in this case, but he argued his lack of treatment,
when coupled with his willingness to obtain it now—including residential treatment, “would
ensure that [defendant] would be appearing regularly in court and not pick up new offenses.”
-5-
Counsel also pointed to the fact the new offenses were not detention eligible and were not
subject to the “dangerousness standard or the willful flight standard.”
¶ 14 When ruling on the State’s verified petition to revoke pretrial release, the circuit
court noted defendant’s presence, representation by counsel, and opportunity to be heard and
present evidence. The court outlined the terms of defendant’s previous release on a recognizance
bond and its related conditions, considering “all relevant circumstances, including, but not
limited to, the nature and seriousness of the violation or criminal act alleged.” The court
recognized the State’s burden “to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or
combination of conditions of release will reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant for
later hearings or prevent the defendant from *** being charged with a subsequent felony or Class
A misdemeanor.” The court acknowledged listening to the State’s proffers and reading the
pretrial risk assessment which placed defendant at a “moderate/high risk.”
¶ 15 Reciting defendant’s criminal history, the circuit court listed: “a battery from ’06,
a battery from ’04, domestic battery from 2012, then a battery from late 2022, where he was
placed on probation for one year, at least according to this report, starting January 27th.” The
court further noted how, while on probation, defendant violated its terms by committing the new
DUI and then, while on bond and probation, he was arrested for criminal damage to property.
¶ 16 The circuit court revoked defendant’s pretrial release, finding, “based on the
totality of what’s in front of the Court, I do think the State has proven by clear and convincing
evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release would prevent the defendant
from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor.”
-6-
¶ 17 This appeal followed. Defendant filed notices of appeal in both the criminal case
and the DUI case. This court consolidated them for purposes of appeal by order on November 2,
2023.
¶ 18 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 19 On appeal, defendant’s claim of error consists of checking a box on the form
notice of appeal provided in the Article VI Forms Appendix to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules.
See Ill. S. Ct. R. 606(d) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023), which says:
“The court erred in its determination that no condition or combination of
conditions would reasonably ensure the appearance of defendant for later hearings
or prevent the defendant from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A
misdemeanor.”
Elaborating in the spaces provided, defendant asserted:
“At the hearing on the State’s petition, [defendant] testified as to a
combination of new, previously unordered conditions that would reasonably
ensure his appearance for later hearings or prevent him from being charged with a
subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. Specifically, [defendant] testified he
would agree to complete alcohol substance use treatment and submit to random
drug and alcohol testing. In response, the State did not present any evidence, let
alone ‘clear and convincing’ evidence, that this new combination of conditions
would fail to reasonably ensure [defendant’s] appearance for later hearings or
prevent him from being charged with subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor
offenses. Because the State failed to meet its burden, and because the court did
-7-
not adequately consider [defendant’s] proposed combination of conditions, the
court erred in revoking [defendant’s] pretrial release.”
¶ 20 OSAD filed a notice in lieu of a Rule 604(h) memorandum as provided under
Rule 604(h)(2) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023). As a result, the quoted language above constitutes the entirety
of defendant’s argument on appeal.
¶ 21 Under section 110-6(a) of the Code, a defendant who has previously been granted
pretrial release under the Act may have pretrial release revoked “only if the defendant is charged
with a felony or Class A misdemeanor that is alleged to have occurred during the defendant’s
pretrial release after a hearing *** upon the filing of a verified petition by the State.” 725 ILCS
5/110-6(a) (West 2022). The State bears “the burden of proving, by clear and convincing
evidence, that no condition or combination of conditions of release would reasonably ensure the
appearance of the defendant for later hearings or prevent the defendant from being charged with
a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6(a) (West 2022).
¶ 22 Although 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), the proper standard of review for revocation of pretrial release under
the Act does not appear to have been addressed directly by any appellate or supreme court
decision. See People v. Smith, 2023 IL App (1st) 231756-UB. However, even in those
jurisdictions adopting a mixed standard of review of a circuit court’s pretrial release decision
under section 110-6.1 (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)), where, as here, the State must meet its
burdens by “clear and convincing evidence,” courts acknowledge “[t]he trial court’s pretrial
release determination, modification of pretrial release determination, or revocation of pretrial
release determination will not be reversed unless the determination was an abuse of discretion.”
-8-
People v. Gibbs, 2023 IL App (5th) 230700-U; see People v. Reynolds, 2023 IL App (5th)
230817-U, ¶ 6; cf. People v. Berry, 2024 IL App (1st) 231997-U, ¶¶ 16-17 (citing People v.
Vingara, 2023 IL App (5th) 230698, ¶ 10) (discussing only the court’s findings regarding the
State’s burden and not the overall standard of review).
¶ 23 This court, following the reasoning of People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th)
230864, and People v. Jones, 2023 IL App (4th) 230837, has concluded both the circuit court’s
ultimate determination and its individual findings on the State’s burdens under the Act are
subject to an abuse of discretion standard. As we said in Inman:
“A defendant *** may claim the State failed to fulfill its burden by ‘clear and
convincing evidence.’ [Citation]. However, we are not reviewing the State’s
evidence anew. Instead, we are reviewing the circuit court’s evaluation of that
evidence for an abuse of discretion. ‘[W]e will not substitute our own judgment
for the trier of fact on issues regarding the weight of the evidence or the
credibility of the witnesses.’ ” Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11 (citing
People v. Vega, 2018 IL App (1st) 160619, ¶ 44, 123 N.E.3d 393).
We found the circuit court was invested with the responsibility to consider the various factors
found in section 110-6.1 relating to dangerousness and the feasibility of less restrictive
conditions before deciding on detention, and we would not substitute our judgment for that of the
circuit court. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11.
¶ 24 The same holds true here. The procedure and burdens under section 110-6 of the
Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6 (West 2022)) are substantially the same. The State is still obligated to
show by clear and convincing evidence “that no condition or combination of conditions of
release would reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant for later hearings or prevent the
-9-
defendant from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor.” 725 ILCS
5/110-6 (West 2022). There is no reason to believe our standard of review would be any different
here—we would not substitute our judgment for the circuit court who heard the evidence. “It is
not the function of the reviewing court to retry the defendant.” People v. Jackson, 2020 IL
124112, ¶ 64, 162 N.E.3d 223. These are factual determinations to be made by the circuit court,
and as we said in Jones, “our supreme court has found that if the challenge presented is a factual
one—as is here—a reviewing court will reverse the circuit court’s ruling only if it constitutes an
abuse of discretion.” Jones, 2023 IL App (4th) 230837, ¶ 30.
¶ 25 We therefore conclude pretrial revocation proceedings are also subject to review
under an abuse of discretion standard. “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. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11.
¶ 26 The State’s verified petition alleged the commission of a Class A misdemeanor
(criminal damage to property) after defendant was placed on pretrial release for a previous Class
A misdemeanor (DUI) as required under section 110-6(a) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6(a)
(West 2022)). Defendant does not contest he was charged with an offense qualifying him for
revocation of pretrial release, and his attorney said as much in his argument to the circuit court.
The State seeks revocation, claiming “no condition or combination of conditions of release
would reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant for later hearings or prevent the
- 10 -
defendant from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor.” 725 ILCS
5/110-6(a) (West 2022).
¶ 27 Defendant contends the circuit court erred in revoking his pretrial release because
“the court did not adequately consider [defendant’s] proposed combination of conditions.”
Defendant further contends the combination of “new, previously unordered conditions” to which
defendant testified “would reasonably ensure his appearance for later hearings or prevent him
from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor,” and the State’s failure to
show otherwise means they failed to meet their burden.
¶ 28 This is the entirety of defendant’s argument as contained in the notice of appeal.
Defendant does not deny the veracity of any information presented by the State at the revocation
hearing and, based on the claims raised in his notice of appeal, he does not otherwise argue he
would not be subject to detention. He does not argue with the circuit court’s analysis of the
evidence presented at the revocation hearing beyond contending the court did not give his
proposed conditions “adequate consideration.” We are left to surmise what that means.
Defendant makes no reference to evidence, testimony, or comments of the court in support of
this conclusory claim. He is, in essence, asking us to reweigh the same evidence considered by
the court. That we will not do. “[W]e are not reviewing the State’s evidence anew. Instead, we
are reviewing the circuit court’s evaluation of that evidence for an abuse of discretion.” Inman,
IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 12. Further, we will not construct an argument the court did not give
defendant’s proposals “adequate consideration” or scour the record to determine what inadequate
consideration would entail. “[A] reviewing court is not simply a depository into which a party
may dump the burden of argument and research.” People ex rel. Illinois Department of Labor v.
E.R.H. Enterprises, Inc., 2013 IL 115106, ¶ 56, 4 N.E.3d 1.
- 11 -
¶ 29 Defendant’s argument overall is based on one faulty premise—just because
defendant testified to the things he said he would be willing to do, does not make it so. The
circuit court was in the best position to gauge his credibility and obviously did so. Inman, 2023
IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11.
¶ 30 At the conclusion of the evidence, the circuit court made a detailed record,
providing the specific, articulable facts upon which it relied in reaching its decision. In doing so,
the court considered “all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to the nature and
seriousness of the violation or criminal act alleged” in the State’s petition for revocation of
pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/110-6(a) (West 2022). The court recognized the State’s burden “to
prove by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release
will reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant for later hearings or prevent the
defendant from *** being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor.” 725 ILCS
5/110-6(a) (West 2022). The court acknowledged the State’s proffers regarding both offenses
and the evidence of an uncharged injury to his girlfriend, noting the new offense was a violation
of his release “just a few months beforehand.” The court considered defendant’s pretrial risk
assessment, which placed him at a “moderate—moderate/high risk,” and referenced his history
of prior battery and domestic battery convictions. Pointing out how defendant was on probation
for a battery, the court observed, “[W]hile he’s out on probation, while he’s out on bond on a
subsequent charge, he yet again picks up another set of charges, which is criminal damage to
property.” Specifically, the court observed defendant had been charged with the DUI in July,
and, while on probation for the previous battery and released on the DUI, he was charged with
the new offense involving his girlfriend. The court also considered the relevant terms of
- 12 -
probation and his previous bond, which were violated by the new charges and evidence of
alcohol consumption.
¶ 31 The circuit court found, based on the “totality of what’s in front of the Court,”
that “the State has proven by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of
conditions of release would prevent the defendant from being charged with a subsequent felony
or Class A misdemeanor” (725 ILCS 5/110-6(a) (West 2022)) and revoked defendant’s pretrial
release. From the record, it is also obvious the court heard and considered both the testimony of
defendant and the arguments of counsel since, after revoking his release, it was the court, not
defendant’s counsel, who suggested a substance abuse treatment evaluation while defendant was
detained, describing it as “a good place to start.” Accordingly, we do not find the court’s
conclusion the State met its burden by clear and convincing evidence to be one where “no
reasonable person would agree with the position adopted by the [circuit] court.” People v.
Becker, 239 Ill. 2d 215, 234, 940 N.E.2d 1131, 1142 (2010).
¶ 32 After a full hearing, with defendant and appointed counsel present, the circuit
court found defendant had been given the opportunity to be heard, was “heard by the Court,” and
was allowed to present evidence in mitigation. The State presented, by proffer, evidence
establishing defendant’s repeated violations of both probationary and pretrial release orders by
engaging in prohibited conduct and committing additional offenses. After providing the basis for
its decision in open court, the court then entered a written order, which complied with all the
requirements of section 110-6(a) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6(a) (West 2022)). Because the
court complied with the requirements of the Code and made all necessary findings, based on this
record, we find no reason to conclude the court’s decision was “arbitrary, fanciful, or
unreasonable.” Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253, ¶ 9.
- 13 -
¶ 33 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 34 For all these reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s order.
¶ 35 Affirmed.
- 14 -