Criminal Law

Defendant appealed from a circuit court order granting the State’s petition for pretrial detention, arguing that the State did not establish that the proof was evident and presumption great that he had committed unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, that the State failed to prove he posed a real and present threat to the safety of the community, that the State failed to prove no conditions of pretrial release would mitigate the threat, that the trial court’s written order was inaccurate, and that the State failed to produce defendant’s criminal history prior to the detention hearing. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that the defendant waived his argument regarding his criminal history. (REYES and D.B. WALKER, concurring)

Defendant, who was charged with aggravated battery, appealed from a circuit court order denying him pre-trial release under the Pre-Trial Fairness Act. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the State failed to prove that no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the threat of safety of any person or the community and that the trial court did not comply with the requirements of the Act where its written order did not explain its findings. (REYES, concurring and R. VAN TINE, specially concurring)

Defendant, who was convicted of robbery and aggravated unlawful restraint, appealed form the circuit court’s second stage dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of post-conviction counsel. The appellate court reversed, finding that the record rebutted the presumption that counsel complied with Rule 651(c) because post-conviction counsel failed to amend the pro se petition to include a verification affidavit. (LAVIN and PUCINSKI, concurring)

The State appealed from an order of the trial court granting the defendant pretrial release with conditions pursuant to the Pre-Trial Fairness Act. On appeal, the State argued that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that certain conditions were sufficient to mitigate the threat defendant posed to any person or persons of the community. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing conditions that allowed defendant to return to the same circumstances under which the alleged crimes took place. The appellate court remanded with instructions that the trial court hold another hearing to determine appropriate conditions for defendant’s release, if any. (MOORE and BOIE, concurring)

Defendant appealed from a trial court order denying him pretrial release under the Pre-Trial Fairness Act. The State filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with SCR 604(h). The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that defendant failed to comply with the requirements of SCR 604(h) because the notice of appeal did not describe the relief requested and the grounds for the relief requested and that it was not sufficient for defendant to merely check boxes on a preprinted form without providing the additional information required by the rule. (DeARMOND and KNECHT, concurring)

Defendant appealed from a trial court order granting the State’s petition to detain her under the Pre-Trial Fairness Act. Defendant argued on appeal that the State did not establish that she posed a real and present threat to the safety of the community in general, that the State did not present any witnesses, video, or physical evidence, that the trial court did not consider other conditions, and that the trial court denied an opportunity for a fair hearing. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the State properly supported its petition through proffer as allowed by the Act, that the trial court properly found she was a danger to a specific individual, and that the record established that the trial court considered conditions other than detention. (C.A. WALKER and TAILOR, concurring)

Defendant, who was 17 years old at the time of the offense, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to a total of 39 years in prison, including a 15-year firearm sentencing enhancement. Defendant appealed from the trial court’s dismissal of his post-conviction petition in which he alleged actual innocence, prosecutorial misconduct, a Brady violation, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The appellate court affirmed, finding that defendant’s actual innocence claim was frivolous and patently without merit despite being supported by an affidavit because the affidavit was rebutted by a surveillance video. The court similarly found that the remaining claims lacked merit and did not require an extended discussion. (C.A. WALKER and TAILOR, concurring)