Criminal Law

Defendant appealed from an order of the trial court ordering his continued detention prior to trial. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court failed to make the appropriate findings under the statute, including whether defendant’s continued detention was necessary under section 110-6.1(i-5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (R. VAN TINE, concurring and REYES, dissenting)

Defendant, who was charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, appealed from a trial court order denying pretrial release. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the record supported the determination that defendant posed a risk to the community based on the offense charged and defendant’s criminal history, including that he was arrested while on parole for another charge. (DOHERTY and LANNERD, concurring)

Defendant appealed from a trial court order denying him pretrial release, arguing that the State’s petition to deny release was not sufficient and did not meet statutory requirements. The appellate court affirmed, finding that there was no error where the State’s petition provided notice of the grounds upon which it sought the denial of pretrial release and where there was a hearing where both parties had the opportunity to present evidence and argument. (KNECHT and VANCIL, concurring)

Defendant, who was charged with six offenses including attempted first degree murder, appealed from an order granting the State’s petition to detain. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erroneously determined that the proof was evident or the presumption great that he committed a detainable offense and that the State’s burden at the detention hearing included showing a likelihood of procuring a conviction if the matter were to proceed to trial. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the proof was evidence or the presumption great that defendant committed the charged offense where it was based on a detailed factual proffer by the prosecution. (HARRIS and DeARMOND, concurring)

Defendant appealed from a trial court order detaining him prior to trial as a danger to the community, arguing that the trial court’s written order memorializing its findings was insufficient and that there was insufficient evidence of his dangerousness or the appropriateness of less-restrictive conditions. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while the court’s written order could have been more detailed it was sufficient to comply with the statute and that the trial court’s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. (SCHOSTOK and MULLEN, concurring)

Defendant appealed from his convictions for being an armed habitual criminal and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, arguing that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed an actual firearm, that the statutes criminalizing the possession of a weapon by a felon are unconstitutional, and that defendant’s convictions violated the one-act, one-crime doctrine. The appellate court affirmed in part and vacated in part, finding that defendant’s convictions violated the one-act, one-crime doctrine but otherwise affirming the convictions. (HETTEL and PETERSON, concurring)