People v. Jackson

1

2024 IL App (2d) 230506-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOEY M. JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2-23-0506

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Second District

February 20, 2024

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

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County. Nos. 23-CF-964 23-CF-1423 Honorable Daniel B. Shanes, Judge, Presiding.

JUSTICE MULLEN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hutchinson and Schostok concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

MULLEN, JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: (1) The State presented clear and convincing evidence that no conditions could mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of persons posed by defendant's pretrial release, and (2) the trial court's oral and written findings at successive detention hearings, read together, were sufficient under the Act.

¶ 2 Defendant, Joey M. Jackson, appeals the November 2, 2023 and November 16, 2023, orders of the circuit court of Lake County denying his request for pretrial release pursuant to article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/art. 110 (West 2022)), commonly known as the Pretrial Fairness Act (Act). See Pub. Acts. 101-652, § 10-255 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023) and 102-1104, § 70 (eff Jan. 1, 2023); Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 52 (lifting stay and setting effective date of Act as September 18, 2023).^[1] Defendant argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that (1) the proof is evident or the presumption great that he committed the charged offenses, (2) he was a threat to any individual or the community, and (3) no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to reconsider his pretrial detention. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On March 2, 2023, defendant was arrested for and charged by complaint with several misdemeanor counts of driving under the influence (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11-501 (West 2022)). Defendant was released on those pending charges. Three months later, defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2 (West 2022)), enhanced due to defendant having been previously convicted of domestic battery. Defendant's bond was set at $50,000 (10% to apply). Defendant was unable to post bond, so he remained incarcerated. On July 20, 2023, defendant's misdemeanor DUI charges were upgraded to felonies, including one count of a class 2, non-probationable DUI (625 ILCS 5/11-501(d)(2)(C) (West 2022)). Defendant's bond remained the same.

¶ 5 A pretrial services "Public Safety Assessment Report" (Report) was completed on May 16, 2023. The Report indicated that defendant was 39 years of age and scored a four on the "failure to appear" scale and a five on the "new criminal activity" scale.^[2] The Report also reflected that defendant had a prior failure to appear, although it was older than two years. The Report noted that defendant had prior misdemeanor and felony convictions, which included convictions of driving while license revoked (2008, 2012, 2016), DUI (2014), aggravated DUI (2010), possession of cannabis (2008), aggravated battery of a peace officer (2005), and domestic battery (2001).

¶ 6 On September 11, 2023, the State filed a "Verified Petition to Detain" (Petition) pursuant to section 110-6.1 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)) on both the aggravated DUI and domestic battery charges. The State requested the court to order the detention of defendant pending trial, alleging that his current offenses and criminal history made him a threat to persons, which no form of pretrial monitoring could mitigate. No action was taken on the State's Petition, and defendant, still not having posted bond, remained incarcerated.

¶ 7 Meanwhile, on October 20, 2023, defendant filed a pro se motion for release, which defense counsel later adopted (Motion). In the Motion, defendant argued that the State failed to file a petition to detain within 21 days, that he could not afford to post bond, and that there existed compelling reasons to release him. A hearing on defendant's Motion was held on November 2, 2023.

¶ 8 At that hearing, the State acknowledged that it had filed a verified petition to detain. The State first addressed defendant's domestic battery charges. As to the factual basis, the State proffered that on May 15, 2023, defendant was with his girlfriend, Shadae Gibson. A neighbor reported hearing defendant and Gibson argue for over two hours, and also heard defendant threaten to kill Gibson. The neighbor heard the argument go outside, and when she looked out her window, she saw defendant chasing Gibson with "some type of stick in his hand." The victim told police that defendant then chased her and punched her four times in the face. Defendant admitted to police that he had a piece of wood from a bed frame and was chasing Gibson, but he did not say that he hit her. The State noted that defendant had a prior domestic battery conviction from 2001. Turning to defendant's DUI charges, the State proffered that Zion police responded to a report of a car accident. The complaining witness indicated that her car was parked in her driveway and that she saw defendant strike her vehicle and then remain in the driveway. When the police made contact with defendant, he was reported to be highly intoxicated, with glassy eyes, slurred speech, and the strong odor of alcohol. The first thing he said to the police was: "you going to take me to jail, just take me to jail." Defendant said that he had consumed a pint of Jose Cuervo that day.

¶ 9 In response, defense counsel argued that the State failed to meet its burden. Defense counsel explained that the defendant had been accepted into drug court and was applying for DUI court. Counsel noted that in the domestic battery incident, Gibson did not sustain any physical injuries. Counsel further argued that defendant had not been arrested since 2016 and had no criminal history between 2016 and the instant matters. Additionally, counsel noted that the DUI took place in a driveway, not on a public roadway, and thus should not be seen as defendant endangering the community. Finally, defense counsel indicated that defendant's incarceration had created hardship, such as defendant having to move his belongings as he had lost housing and defendant's inability to work while incarcerated. Counsel informed the court that defendant supports his 7-year-old son, and that his children's mother had recently passed away.

¶ 10 The court found the offenses with which defendant was charged to be detainable. The court further found that the proof is evident or the presumption great that defendant committed the offenses. The court noted it had considered the pretrial Report, the results of the risk assessment instrument, and defendant's criminal history. Based on these facts, the court stated "the question then becomes whether or there are any other conditions that could be sufficient to mitigate that threat. And the court finds based upon everything that's here that that's not present. You need to stay in for a little bit."

¶ 11 In response to the trial court's findings, defendant told the trial court, "I haven't seen my kids, your honor. I've been here a long time." The court responded, "You've been here-I mean from my perspective, long enough that this should be figured out." After further discussion, defendant asked the trial court if he could have any restrictions such as an "ankle bracelet." The court responded, "Actually, we don't have ankle bracelets." Defendant argued that he was not a flight risk and had never "jumped bail" or skipped court, to which the trial court indicated that it would revisit the matter in two weeks. The court then signed a preprinted order of detention, checking boxes where applicable to reflect its ruling. It checked boxes and found that the defendant was charged with detainable offenses and that he posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person/s or the community, based on the specific articulable facts of the case. The form order provided preprinted language with a finding that "no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons for offenses listed in 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1) through (7) OR the defendant's willful flight for offenses listed in 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(8)," and that "less restrictive conditions would not assure safety to the community." ¶ 12 On November 16, 2023, the matter returned to court for review of defendant's detention. The defense attorney reported that defendant was not accepted into DUI court, but was still eligible for drug court. After discussion with defendant about specialty courts and findings discussed in further detail below, the trial court determined that "continued detention under the law [was] appropriate." Thereafter, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

¶ 13 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 14 The Act amended the Code by abolishing traditional monetary bail in favor of pretrial release on personal recognizance or with conditions of release. 725 ILCS 5/110-1.5, 110-2(a) (West 2022). In Illinois, all persons charged with an offense are eligible for pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/110-2(a), 110-6.1(e) (West 2022). Under the Code as amended, a defendant's pretrial release may only be denied in certain statutorily limited situations (qualifying offenses). 725 ILCS 5/110-2(a), 110-6.1 (West 2022). For most of the qualifying offenses, upon filing a verified petition requesting denial of...