People v. Inman
| Docket Number | 4-23-0864 |
| Decision Date | 17 November 2023 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM R. INMAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Warren County No. 23CF122 Honorable Nigel D. Graham, Judge Presiding.
James E. Chadd, Carolyn R. Klarquist, and David C. Holland, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Patrick Delfino and David J. Robinson, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of Springfield (Sam C. Mitchell, of Sam C. Mitchell & Associates, of West Frankfort, of counsel), for the People.
OPINION
¶ 1 Defendant, William R. Inman, appeals the circuit court's order denying him pretrial release pursuant to article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/art. 110 (West 2022)), which was recently amended by Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as the Pretrial Fairness Act (Act). Defendant asserts "[t]he State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions can 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, or defendant's willful flight." We affirm.
¶ 3 On September 21, 2023, the State charged defendant with nine counts spanning three different case numbers. Specifically, defendant was charged with two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, two counts of possession of a firearm while being firearm owner's identification (FOID) card ineligible, one count of unlawful possession of ammunition by a felon, and one count of unlawful possession of methamphetamine in Warren County case No. 23-CF-122; one count of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine in Warren County case No. 23-CF-118; and one count of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine and one count of armed violence in Warren County case No. 23-CF-119.
¶ 4 On the same date, pursuant to section 110-6.1 the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)), the State filed a verified petition seeking to deny pretrial release in case No 23-CF-122, alleging the commission of a forcible felony for which defendant was not eligible for probation and contending defendant's pretrial release "poses a real and present threat" under subsection 110-6.1(a)(1) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1) (West 2022)). Although the State filed its petition for only one of the three case numbers, we observe the parties and the circuit court considered the charges and facts surrounding all three cases.
¶ 5 The matter then proceeded to a timely hearing on the State's verified petition, per the Code's requirements. In support of its petition, the State alleged defendant, on two separate occasions, sold methamphetamine to a confidential source who, following the purchases, informed police of additional methamphetamine and weapons being kept in defendant's garage. Further, "[t]here had been surveillance done at the time that these controlled buys were conducted[,] and they were conducted at that location." A search warrant executed at defendant's residence produced "a loaded 9[-]millimeter Taurus handgun, [a] .22 Stevens rifle," eight "magazines of different calibers, *** a digital scale consistent with the type that's used to weigh drugs for sale, [and] various drug packaging materials." Police also found "a Vaseline container *** concealing some methamphetamine," a "tool bag" containing "various ammunition including 9[-]millimeter and .22 ammunition," a spent cartridge case, another digital scale, and a "plastic tray containing methamphetamine and some unlabeled pills." The State also noted defendant's criminal history "in both Iowa and Illinois," which included "at least one conviction for an assaultive-type offense" and "controlled substance violations." Finally, the risk assessment tool utilized by pretrial services indicated defendant scored as a "moderate high risk for not appearing at future court appearances and to reoffend."
¶ 6 The circuit court entered an order denying pretrial release, finding defendant was charged with a detainable offense, he posed a real and present threat to the safety of the community, and no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate that threat. The court also found defense counsel "was given an adequate opportunity to confer in private with the Defendant prior to the Initial Appearance pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/109-1(g)." The court's written order articulated specific reasons for the decision, namely the "multiple firearms, ammunition, and deliveries of methamphetamine in a short period of time," and the fact that "[d]efendant showed a firearm to a confidential source at or around [the] time of methamphetamine delivery." Defendant filed a notice of appeal immediately thereafter. The Office of the State Appellate Defender has elected to file a notice in lieu of an Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023) memorandum.
¶ 8 Utilizing the form approved for Rule 604(h) appeals by defendants, defendant's claim of error consisted of a checked box on the six-page form notice of appeal, asserting "[t]he State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions can 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, or defendant's willful flight." Although it provided additional space for elaboration, defendant made no further reference to the record or the facts presented at the hearing or through exhibits, made no additional argument, and cited no authority in support of his claim.
¶ 9 The State's memorandum in response argued the circuit court's findings and written order complied with the Code in every respect. For example, the State contended that after finding "clear and convincing evidence" defendant committed a qualifying offense under section 110-6.1 of the Code, the court properly entered a written order directing defendant to be committed to custody pending trial as required by subsection 110-6.1(h)(1) (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West 2022)). In doing so, the court considered the relevant factors included in subsection 110-6.1(g) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g)(1)-(9) (West 2022) ()). The State's memo further contended the court then properly considered the factors required by subsections 110-6.1(a)(1)-(7) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1)-(7) (West 2022)) and cited specific articulable facts before concluding less restrictive conditions other than detention would not avoid a real and present threat to the safety of the community.
¶ 10 According to our supreme court, the Act ushered in a new reality for pretrial release. See Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 39 n.3. The new provisions of the Code, however, cannot function independently from the larger, longstanding body of law governing appeals. We address as a matter of first impression the language and application of the provisions of the Code, as amended by the Act, relating to pretrial detention and appeals therefrom, particularly the standard of review and appellate procedure. We have historically reviewed bail appeals under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(c)(1) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023) using an abuse of discretion standard. People v. Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253, ¶ 9, 143 N.E.3d 833. "An abuse of discretion occurs when the circuit court's decision is 'arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable,' or where 'no reasonable person would agree with the position adopted by the [circuit] court.'" Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253, ¶ 9 (quoting People v. Becker, 239 Ill.2d 215, 234, 940 N.E.2d 1131, 1142 (2010)); see People v. Johnson, 2019 IL App (3d) 190582, ¶ 8, 147 N.E.3d 756 ().
¶ 11 Rule 604(h), as amended due to the Act, provides a new procedure for these appeals. See Ill. S.Ct. R. 604(h) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023). But the Act neither mandates nor suggests a different standard of review. A defendant appealing under Rule 604(h) may claim the State failed to fulfill its burden by "clear and convincing evidence." See Ill. S.Ct. R. 604(h)(1)(iii) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023). However, we are not reviewing the State's evidence anew. Instead, we are reviewing the circuit court's evaluation of that evidence for an abuse of discretion. "[W]e will not substitute our own judgment for the trier of fact on issues regarding the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses." People v. Vega, 2018 IL App (1st) 160619, ¶ 44, 123 N.E.3d 393. Under the Code, the circuit court was invested with the responsibility to consider the various factors listed in section 110-6.1(g) (real and present danger), as well as those in section 110-6.1(a)(1)-(8) () before finding detention to be appropriate. "[I]n reviewing the circuit court's ruling for an abuse of discretion, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the circuit court, 'merely because we would have balanced the appropriate factors differently.'" Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253, ¶ 15 (quoting People v. Cox, 82 Ill.2d 268, 280, 412 N.E.2d 541, 547 (1980)).
¶ 12 Turning to appellate...
To continue reading
Request your trial