Criminal Law

Defendant appealed from a trial court order denying him pretrial release under the Pre-Trial Fairness Act, arguing that the State’s detention petition was unverified and untimely. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the lack of verification did not amount to plain error and that the petition was timely filed while the defendant was still in custody. (HOFFMAN and MARTIN, concurring)

In consolidated appeals, the circuit court in five criminal actions found the defendants unfit to stand trial and ordered that they be provided fitness restoration treatment by the Department of Human Services. The department subsequently was found in indirect civil contempt for failing to obey those orders and the department appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err in entering the indirect civil contempt order and that the trial court reasonably determined that the department voluntarily chose not to attempt jail-based restoration services. The appellate court also found that the trial court did not improperly consider past conditions when it found that the department’s failure to comply was willful and contumacious. (McLAREN and BIRKETT, concurring)

Defendant, who was charged with armed habitual criminal, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, unlawful use of a weapon, and manufacture and delivery of heroin, appealed from a trial court order granting the State’s petition for pretrial detention under the Pre-Trial Fairness Act. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err in detaining defendant and finding that no set of conditions would mitigate the harm he posed where the record established that defendant had previously violated conditions placed on him because he had been in possession of a weapon while out on parole. (ELLIS and COBBS, concurring)

Defendant appealed from a trial court order revoking his pretrial release pursuant to the Pre-Trial Fairness Act, which went into effect after defendant was arrested and released on monetary bond. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the language of the Act allowing for revocation of pretrial release applied equally to defendants who had been released prior to the Act’s implementation date because a narrower interpretation would frustrate the intent of the legislature. (MOORE and BARBERIS, concurring)

Defendant, who was arrested and charged with one count of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and two counts of felony domestic battery, appealed from a trial court order granting the State’s petition to deny pretrial release under the Pre-Trial Fairness Act. The appellate court affirmed, finding first that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel did not object to the timeliness of the State’s petition and then declining to address defendant’s remaining arguments that were raised in the notice of appeal because they were abandoned when not also raised in his memorandum. (HUTCHINSON and BIRKETT, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to a total of 60 years in prison, including a mandatory firearm enhancement. Defendant, who was 20 years old at the time of the offense, filed a motion for leave to file a successive post-conviction petition arguing that his sentence violated the proportionate penalties clause. The trial court denied his motion and defendant appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of both cause and prejudice for a youth-based proportionate penalties claim. (LANNERD and KNECHT, concurring)

Defendant, who was charged with aggravated vehicular hijacking, appealed from the trial court’s grant of the State’s petition for pretrial detention under the Pre-Trial Fairness Act. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err when it found clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed a detainable offense and in finding that the defendant posed a real and present threat to any person or persons or the community. The appellate court also engaged in a lengthy discussion of the proper standard of review for appeals brought under the Pre-Trial Fairness Act and concluded a two-step approach was proper. (HOWSE, concurring and ELLIS, specially concurring)

Defendant, who was arrested and detained prior to implementation of the Pre-Trial Fairness Act, appealed a trial court order denying him pretrial release under the Act. Defendant argued on appeal that the State did not have the authority to file a petition to deny pretrial release due to the timing requirements of the Act. The appellate court vacated the order and remanded, explaining that defendant had the opportunity to elect to stand on his original pretrial condition to post monetary bail or to file a motion for hearing. Where, as here, defendant did not file a motion for hearing the State’s petition to detain was not timely. (BOIE, concurring and VAUGHAN, dissenting)

Defendant appealed from a circuit court order granting the State’s motion to detain him under the Pre-Trial Fairness Act, arguing that the trial court’s written findings did not comply with the Act and that the State failed to prove that no set of conditions could mitigate the danger posed by pretrial release. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court’s oral ruling together with its written findings were sufficient under the Act and that requiring the trial court to transcribe its oral findings into a written order would not serve the interests of justice. The appellate court also found that the trial court’s ruling was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where defendant’s history of domestic violence indicated that monitoring alone would be insufficient to ensure the safety of the victim. (McLAREN and BIRKETT, concurring)