Criminal Law

Defendant appealed from an order of the trial court granting the State’s petition to detain under the Pre-Trial Fairness Act, arguing that he was not charged with a forcible felony and that the State failed to prove he posed a threat if released with conditions. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion where defendant had multiple outstanding warrants for failing to appear in court and fled the scene and that alternatives, such as GPS monitoring, would not have secured defendant’s appearance. (ALBRECHT, concurring and BRENNAN, specially concurring)

Defendant appealed from two circuit court orders granting his petition for post-conviction relief and re-sentencing him to 37 years in prison for two counts of attempted first-degree murder. Defendant argued on appeal that resentencing was an insufficient remedy for his claim that trial court’s improper advice caused him to reject a plea offer and that the sentence imposed violated his due process rights and was excessive. The appellate court agreed with the second argument and reversed and remanded, finding that defendant was sentenced to a term of years beyond what he was told was possible when he made the decision to reject the plea offer and that due process and fairness considerations required that he not be sentenced beyond the date range he was given prior to accepting the plea deal. (ROCHFORD and MARTIN, concurring)

The trial court granted the State’s petition brought under the Pretrial Fairness Act to detain defendant, who was charged with a variety of offenses including gunrunning, unlawful sale or delivery of firearms, and armed violence. Defendant appealed, arguing that the State did not comply with the statutory requirements to deny pretrial release because it did not disclose all of the documents in its possession relating to the charges filed against him. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the State was required to disclose only that information it relied on in filing the petition to deny release and that it did so. (HUTCHINSON and KENNEDY, concurring)

Defendant appealed from a trial court order granting the State’s petition to detain under the Pre-Trial Fairness Act, arguing that it was not timely. The appellate court agreed and reversed, noting that the petition to detain was not timely because the State previously had agreed that the trial court should set bail and the State was bound by that prior decision. The appellate court remanded for the trial court to reinstate its prior conditions of release. (C.A. WALKER, concurring and TAILOR, dissenting)

Defendant appealed from a trial court order granting the State’s petition to deny him release under the Pretrial Fairness Act. Defendant argued on appeal that the State’s petition was untimely and that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering denial of his release. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the State permissibly filed a petition to deny defendant pretrial release within 21 days of the trial court’s order to release him and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the State met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was evident that defendant had committed the crime of robbery. (FITZGERALD SMITH and COGHLAN, concurring)

Defendant appealed from the State’s petition to detain and denial of his motion to remove the monetary condition of his bond, arguing the State lacked the statutory authority to move to revoke a previously set bond for a retained defendant. The appellate court affirmed, explaining that the State is permitted to file a responding petition in situations where the defendant was arrested and detained prior to implementation of the Pretrial Fairness Act, remained in detention after the monetary bail was set, and filed a motion seeking to modify pretrial release conditions. (PETERSON and ALBRECHT, concurring)

Defendant appealed from a trial court order granting the State’s petition to detain and the denial of defendant’s motion to remove the monetary condition of his bond, arguing that the State lacked the authority to move to revoke a previously set bond for a detained defendant and that the State failed to prove that no conditions could mitigate any threat that he posed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the State was permitted under the language of the Pre-Trial Fairness Act to file a responsive pleading and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion where defendant threatened to commit a violent act, had a previous arrest for battery, and was not taking medicine necessary to treat a mental health disorder.  (HOLDRIDGE and HETTEL, concurring)

Defendant, who was charged with three counts of possession of child pornography, appealed from a trial court order granting the State’s petition to deny pretrial release. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying pretrial release where the record established that defendant had a history of violent and abusive behavior toward children and, as a result, he posed a real and present threat to the community. (HUTCHINSON and KENNEDY, concurring)

Defendant, who was arrested for driving under the influence and was in jail pending the payment of bond, petitioned the trial court to be released after the provisions of the Pre-Trial Fairness Act went into effect. The trial court denied the defendant’s petition, finding that she was a danger to the community and that no set of conditions could mitigate that danger. The appellate court vacated and remanded, concluding that it could not reach the merits of the defendant’s appeal based on the record on appeal and instructing the trial court to conduct a new detention hearing in which it discusses the potential alternatives to detention and whether they would be a viable option. (HOWSE and McBRIDE, concurring)