People v. Claver

1

2024 IL App (1st) 240634-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRUCE CLAVER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-24-0634B

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division

August 30, 2024

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 22 CR 2644 Honorable Anjana M.J. Hansen, Judge, presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE ROCHFORD delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hoffman and Martin concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

ROCHFORD, PRESIDING JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: We dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction where defendant's spouse, a nonlawyer affixed her signature to the Rule 604(h) notice of appeal.

¶ 2 This is an appeal from the order of the circuit court granting the State's petition for revocation of pretrial release of defendant-appellant, Bruce Claver, pursuant to 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).^[1] Amy Claver, defendant's wife, (Amy) signed her own name on the notice of appeal. She also affixed her signature on notices of appeal in six other cases in which the circuit court had ordered that defendant be detained pretrial. We find that the notice of appeal violates Illinois Supreme Court Rule 606(a) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023) and is a nullity and dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

¶ 3 Our factual background will include some discussion of defendant's other cases for an understanding of the issues on appeal. In the circuit court, defendant was represented by private counsel in all of his cases.

¶ 4 On January 10, 2022, defendant was arrested and charged, by felony complaints, in the Municipal Division in case number 222000015, with predatory criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual assault of child victims. The circuit court set a $250,000 "Deposit Bond" and set special conditions if defendant was released, which would prohibit him from contact or communication by any means including social media with the victims and being at or near their homes, school, or work and prohibiting him from having any contact with the witnesses and any person under 18 years of age excluding family members. Defendant posted bond and was released. On March 3, 2022, the Municipal Court charges were superseded by indictment and became case numbers 22 CR 2640, 22CR 2641, and 22 CR 2642 in the Criminal Division. The offenses, against the three victims, were alleged to have occurred from March 2012 through March 2015, January 2012 through January 2014, and February 2014 through February 2016, respectively.

¶ 5 On February 4, 2022, defendant was arrested and charged, by felony complaints, in the Municipal Division in case number 222001421, with aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a child and family member and predatory criminal sexual assault of a child. The circuit court ordered that defendant be held without bond and prohibited him from contact with the victim or anyone under 18 years of age. On March 3, 2022, the Municipal Court charges were superseded by indictment and became case numbers 22 CR 2643 and 22 CR 2644, which is the subject of this appeal, in the Criminal Division. The offenses, against the two minor victims, were alleged to have occurred from September 2012 through November 2013 and July 2011 through July 2013, respectively.

¶ 6 On June 8, 2022 the circuit court, in response to defendant's motions to reduce bond, set bond at $150,000 "Deposit Bond" in case number 22 CR 2643 and $200,000 "Deposit Bond" in case number 22 CR 2644. In both cases, the court ordered that if he posted bond, defendant should be placed on electronic home monitoring (EHM). Defendant, again, posted bond and was released on EHM.

¶ 7 On December 11, 2023, Glenview Police Detectives (GPD), United States Secret Service (USSS), and the Cook County Sheriff's Police Investigator executed a search warrant at defendant's residence where defendant and Amy were present. Officers recovered 22 electronic devices, including multiple USB drives and laptops from the residence and one Samsung cellphone from defendant's person.

¶ 8 On that day, defendant was arrested and charged, by felony complaints, in the Municipal Division in case number 232002367 with nine counts of manufacturing child pornography. The offenses were said to have occurred on or about September 19, 2016. On December 13, the court issued a written "order after pretrial detention hearing" pursuant to sections 110-2 and 110-6.1 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-2, 110-6.1 (West 2022)) denying the State's petition for pretrial detention. As conditions of his pretrial release, defendant was placed on EHM and prohibited from contacting anyone under the age of 18 and accessing the internet. On January 8, 2024, The Municipal Court charges were superseded by indictment and became case number 24 CR 497 in the Criminal Division.

¶ 9 On March 6, 2024, defendant was arrested and charged in the Municipal Division in case number 242000385 with 11 counts of possession of child pornography on or about December 11, 2023. These charges stem from an analysis of defendant's electronic devices which were seized during the search of defendant's home. Defendant was arrested, while on a furlough day from EHM, at a public library where he had been using the library's computers. GPD seized a USB drive, a Samsung cellphone, a micro-SD memory card, and a library-owned laptop. GPD also recovered defendant's backpack which included a printed manual of materials pertaining to strategies in defending child-related sex cases and discrediting child victims.

¶ 10 On March 8, 2024, based on the State's petition, Judge Lorraine Mary Murphy conducted a detention hearing. Following the hearing the court made the necessary findings, granted the State's petition, and ordered defendant detained pending trial. The court admonished defendant: "You have 14 days to appeal my decision. If you couldn't afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to you free of charge for the appeal." Defendant responded: "Does that mean I can get a Public Defender while I still retain my attorney?" The court answered: "For the appeal, yes. That's what the rights are. So that's up to you. You have 14 days to do so."

¶ 11 The State also filed a petition in this case and defendant's five other Criminal Division cases, seeking revocation of defendant's pretrial release on the ground that defendant had now been charged with possession of child pornography. That same day, after a hearing, Judge Anjana M.J. Hansen granted the State's petitions to revoke defendant's pretrial release. The court entered a written order in each case reflecting that ruling. Judge Hansen admonished defendant that he had the right to appeal the orders within 14 days and an appellate attorney would be appointed if he could not afford one. Defendant indicated that he understood the admonishments.

¶ 12 On March 21, 2024, Amy, defendant's wife and a nonlawyer, filed a notice of appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023) in each of defendant's seven cases. Amy used the template form notice of appeal which had been approved at that time for Rule 604(h) appeals.

¶ 13 In the notice filed in this appeal, under the nature of the order appealed, Amy checked "denying pretrial release." After relief requested, Amy wrote that defendant was seeking "Home confinement w/ electronic monitoring". The notice indicated that the order being appealed was dated "21 March 2024," stated the hearing regarding pretrial release took place on March 8, 2024, and attached to the notice of appeal the March 8 pretrial detention order. She checked the yes box, after a section stating, "If Defendant is indigent and has no attorney do they want one appointed?" Amy listed the name and contact information for defendant's private "trial attorney." In the section asking for defendant's name and address where notices should be sent, "if defendant has no attorney," Amy gave defendant's name, his prisoner number and division in the jail, the jail address, and his email address as "Amyclaver@gmail.com". She checked that the "official transcript for the hearing on March 8 2024" was attached as a supporting record, but the transcript was not attached.

¶ 14 The form notice lists specific grounds for relief on appeal and the drafter is directed to "check all that apply and describe in detail." In the section titled "Denial or Revocation of Pretrial Release," Amy checked the box "The State failed to meet its burden by proving clear and convincing evidence that the proof is evident or the presumption great that defendant committed the offense(s) charged." In the blank lines provided to "describe in detail," Amy wrote: "No evidence has been presented." Amy also checked the box "The State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, based on the specific, articulable facts of the case." In the blank lines provided, Amy wrote: "State failed to present the defendant poses a threat based on the legal definition of a threat-Black's Law Dictionary, Tenth Edition-1) a communicated intent to inflict harm or loss on another or on another's property 2) an indication of an approaching menace; suggestion of an impending detriment 3) a person or thing that might well cause harm." Amy checked the box "Other" and wrote: "Defendant was on [EHM] from 14 June 2022 to 8 March 2024, 21 months nearly 2 yrs without any...