People v. Tooley

1

2024 IL App (2d) 240395-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANKLIN E. TOOLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2-24-0395

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Second District

October 8, 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 De Kalb County. No. 23-CF-158 Honorable Marcy L. Buick, Judge, Presiding.

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

ORDER

MULLEN JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The trial court did not err in granting the State's petition to deny defendant pretrial release and ordering him detained.

¶ 2 Defendant, Franklin E. Tooley, appeals from orders of the circuit court of De Kalb County (1) granting the State's verified petition to deny him pretrial release pursuant to article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/art. 110 (West 2022)), commonly referred to as the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today (SAFE-T) Act or the Pretrial Fairness Act, and (2) denying his subsequent motion for relief pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(2) (eff. April 15, 2024). See Pub. Acts 101-652 § 10-255 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023) and 1021104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023) (we will refer to these public acts as the "Acts"). Defendant, through counsel, declined to file a memorandum as permitted by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(7) (eff. April 15, 2024). He therefore stands on the arguments raised in his motion for relief, namely that (1) the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, based on the specific articulable facts of the case and (2) the trial court failed to include in its order a summary of its reasons for denying pretrial release as required by section 110-6.1(h)(1) of the Act (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West 2022)). We affirm.

¶ 3 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

¶ 4 A. Background

¶ 5 On March 24, 2023, defendant was charged by criminal complaint in the circuit court of De Kalb County with various felony sex crimes involving his 13-year-old sister, A.L Defendant, a 17-year-old minor at the time, was transferred to River Valley Juvenile Detention Center in Joliet. On March 25, 2023, bond was set at $500,000 (10% to apply). Defendant was unable to post bond and remained in detention.

¶ 6 On April 17, 2023, the criminal complaint was superseded by a 29-count indictment charging defendant with: (1) 12 counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault of a person with a physical disability (720 ILCS 5/11-1.30(a)(6) (West 2022)), a Class X felony; (2) 4 counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault of a person with a severe or profound intellectual disability (720 ILCS 5/11-1.30(c) (West 2022)), a Class X felony; (3) 1 count of aggravated kidnapping of a person with a severe or profound intellectual disability (720 ILCS 5/10-2(a)(2) (West 2022)), a Class X felony; (4) 1 count of aggravated kidnapping and committing another felony upon the victim (720 ILCS 5/10-2(a)(3) (West 2022)), a Class X felony; (5) 3 counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a person with a physical disability (720 ILCS 5/11-1.60(a)(4) (West 2022)), a Class 2 felony; (6) 1 count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a family member under 18 years of age (720 ILCS 5/11-1.60(b) (West 2022)); (7) 1 count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a person with a severe or profound intellectual disability (720 ILCS 5/11-1.60(e) (West 2022)), a Class 2 felony; (8) 4 counts of sexual relations with a family member (720 ILCS 5/11-11(a) (West 2022)), a Class 3 felony; and (9) 2 counts of aggravated battery of a person with a physical disability (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(d)(2) (West 2022)), a Class 3 felony.

¶ 7 B. Detention Proceedings

¶ 8 On March 12, 2024, defendant, still being held in detention and unable to post bond, filed a "Motion for Reconsideration of Pretrial Release Conditions or, in the alternative Furlough Defendant" (Motion) pursuant to sections 110-7.5 and 110-5(e) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-7.5, 110-5(e) (West 2022)). Defendant argued that he should be released with a requirement that he be placed at Nexus-Onarga (Onarga), a juvenile residential and high-school facility specializing in the treatment of sexually problematic behaviors. Attached to the Motion was an email from Onarga confirming defendant's acceptance into the facility.

¶ 9 Also on March 12, 2024, the State filed a "Verified Petition to Deny Defendant Pretrial Release" (Petition). The State urged the trial court to deny defendant pretrial release pursuant to section 110-6.1 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)) because defendant was charged with (1) a forcible felony as listed in section 110-6.1(a)(1.5) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1.5) (West 2022)) or any other felony which involves the threat of or infliction of great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and (2) defendant is charged under a relevant section of Article 11 of the Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/art. 11 (West 2022)). See 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(5) (West 2022). The State alleged that defendant's pretrial release would pose a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community.

¶ 10 At a March 18, 2024 hearing, the trial court heard arguments from both parties concerning the Motion and Petition. Prior to the hearing, the State presented the trial court and defense counsel with a police department synopsis of facts. At the hearing, the State proffered as follows. On February 21,2023, after the family had gone to bed, defendant's 15-year-old sister, S.T., heard her younger 13-year-old sister, A.L., crying out. A.L., who is nonverbal and noncommunicative, has multiple diagnoses of physical and mental conditions which confine her mostly to a wheelchair or bed. A.L.'s room has active cameras to aid her parents in monitoring her nighttime care. S.T. was unable to open A.L.'s locked door and began pounding on it until defendant, appearing flustered, unlocked and opened the door. S.T. observed that the bedroom cameras were disconnected and turned off and that A.L.'s diaper had been removed. Defendant told S.T. that he was attempting to change the diaper. However, family members later told the police that defendant had never changed A.L.'s diaper and was forbidden to do so. When defendant's parents came to the room, defendant ran from A.L.'s bedroom and hid in the bathroom, appearing upset. At a pre-scheduled appointment the following day, A.L.'s pediatrician gave an assessment of obvious sexual abuse based on the injuries present. Although seminal fluid was found in the victim's diaper, testing determined that it contained no actual DNA.

¶ 11 Further, the State proffered that De Kalb County Sheriff's detectives recorded an interview with defendant at his house. During the interview, defendant admitted to entering A.L.'s room that night, locking the door, turning off the cameras, removing her diaper, and engaging in various acts of penetration with her. He admitted to penetrating her vagina with his fingers, attempting to place his penis in her vagina, and anally penetrating her with his penis. He admitted this was not the first time.

¶ 12 The State also described a 2020 incident in which defendant attempted a sexual assault against his other sister, S.T.. Defendant told S.T., who is approximately one year younger than defendant, that the only available television was in his bedroom. S.T. went into his bedroom, and while there, defendant locked the door, removed her pants, and attempted to penetrate her. He abandoned his efforts when S.T. fought back and their mother began pounding on the door.

¶ 13 In support of its contention that defendant is a danger to society, the State referenced his multiple acts of sexual penetration with A.L., asserting that "various societal mores and taboos in addition to the law simply isn't something that deters him." The State argued that defendant took steps to avoid detection and that it was not the first time he had attempted to sexually assault another person. The State also noted that defendant's school records documented repeated, inappropriate sexual contacts between defendant and other nonfamilial members, including S.T.'s friends. The State asserted that defendant presents a danger to any woman "he comes across."

¶ 14 Finally, the State communicated concerns about defendant's proposed placement at Onarga. The State contended Onarga is not a state facility, and, in fact, is not secure with unlocked doors and unsecured grounds. The State also believed that Onarga would not be able to accommodate electronic home monitoring (EHM). Because it is a residential-treatment and highschool facility designed to work with juvenile offenders, the State contended it is not an appropriate placement for an offender facing significant adult criminal charges. Given that defendant is now an adult and not a ward of the court, the State doubted Onarga would have any legal standing to keep defendant from leaving. And, given defendant's potential sentencing of a minimum of 33 years and his "problem controlling his urges," the State argued defendant has a strong motive to seek more opportunities to satisfy his urges before "he's sent away for a very long time." Additionally, the State questioned whether defendant could abide by the facility's rules, stating that "he wasn't supposed to be in his sister's room that night, either, so just because he's not supposed to be somewhere certainly isn't something that's prevented him in the past." Finally, ...