People v. Peralta ( 2023 )

2023 IL App (1st) 231897-UTHIRD DIVISION
December 27, 2023
No. 1-23-1897B
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County.
)
v. ) No. 23 MC 1112426
)
IVAN PERALTA, ) Honorable
) Barbara L. Dawkins,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE VAN TINE delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Reyes and D.B. Walker concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: We reverse and remand this matter brought pursuant to the Pretrial Fairness Act
(Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023)), where the circuit court failed to provide a written
summary explaining why less restrictive means would be insufficient to mitigate the threat
defendant’s release would present, as required under subsection 110-6.1(h)(1) of the Code
of Civil Procedure. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West Supp. 2023).
¶2 Defendant-appellant Ivan Peralta has filed a Pretrial Fairness Act (PFA) appeal under
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023) from the circuit court’s order entered on
1-23-1897B
October 3, 2023, which denied his pretrial release. The State charged Peralta with first degree
murder and attempt first degree murder after Peralta shot two men on a Chicago city street, killing
one of them and injuring the other. At the pretrial detention hearing, the circuit court held that the
State had met its burden and proved by clear and convincing evidence that Peralta is ineligible for
pretrial release. Peralta appeals. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
¶3 BACKGROUND
¶4 On the night of September 30, 2023, Peralta and his uncle were involved in a physical
altercation with a group of men outside of a liquor store in Chicago. Peralta has tendered a 56-
second video of the incident from a nearby security camera that shows the events immediately
prior and subsequent to the shootings outside of the liquor store. A man punches Peralta’s uncle in
the face. Peralta then shoots that man and another man who had not struck the uncle. One of the
men died and the other survived the incident. At the time of the incident, Peralta held a valid
firearm owner’s identification card and concealed carry license.
¶5 Based on the events of September 30, the State has charged Peralta with first degree murder
and attempt first degree murder. Pretrial services assigned Peralta a score of 2 out of 6 on the “new
criminal activity” scale, and a 1 out of 6 on the “failure to appear” scale. The State successfully
petitioned the circuit court for defendant’s pretrial detention. The court found the following: (1)
the proof was evident or the presumption was great that defendant has committed an offense that
qualified for pretrial detention because there is a video of defendant firing multiple shots at a group
of people during an altercation; (2) defendant’s release would pose a real and present threat to the
safety of a person, persons, or the community, as he is seen discharging a firearm into a group of
people, which is a disproportionate response to the threat in this incident; and (3) no condition or
combination of conditions of pretrial release can mitigate that threat as he is seen firing multiple
2
1-23-1897B
shots on a city street in connection with an altercation at a liquor store, and his pretrial services
investigation score corresponded with a “3”. Peralta appeals all three findings.
¶6 ANALYSIS
¶7 On appeal, Peralta argues that he should be released from pretrial detention because the
State failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) he committed murder or attempted
to commit murder because he acted in self-defense; (2) he is a danger to any person or the
community; and (3) no less restrictive conditions, such as electronic monitoring, required reporting
to pretrial services, and curfew, could mitigate the threat he poses to other persons and the
community.
¶8 In response, the State argues that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in deciding
to detain Peralta after finding that his conduct satisfied the three elements of the PFA inquiry. In
essence, the State rehashed the court’s verbal and written findings, in which the court briefly noted
each element and why Peralta satisfied it. The State did not address whether the court fulfilled its
obligation to provide a written summary explaining why or why not less restrictive conditions
could mitigate the threat Peralta presents.
¶9 In considering this appeal, this court has reviewed Peralta’s notice of appeal, as well as his
supporting recording, supporting memorandum, and the 56-second video clip of the shooting he
tendered. We have also reviewed the State’s response to Peralta’s memorandum.
¶ 10 Under section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, all defendants are presumed to be
eligible for pretrial release, unless the State can show, by clear and convincing evidence, that a
particular defendant should be denied pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e) (West Supp. 2023).
Clear and convincing evidence is “that quantum of proof that leaves no reasonable doubt in the
mind of the fact finder about the truth of the proposition in question.” In re Tiffany W., 2012 IL
3
1-23-1897B
App (1st) 102492-B, ¶ 12. To detain a defendant prior to trial, the State must show, by clear and
convincing evidence, that (1) the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant has
committed a qualifying offense, (2) the defendant’s pretrial release poses a real and present threat
to the safety of the community, and (3) that less restrictive conditions would not avoid that threat.
725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(d), (e) (West Supp. 2023). If the trial court determines that the defendant
should be denied pretrial release, the court is required to make written findings summarizing the
reasons for denying pretrial release. Id. § 110-6.1(h).
¶ 11 In support of its finding as to the first element, the circuit court noted that “Defendant is
on video firing multiple shots at a group of people during an altercation.” We find it evident that,
based on the video footage, defendant did commit qualifying offenses by discharging a firearm
into a group of men, killing one and injuring another. Both first degree murder and attempt first
degree murder are qualifying offenses under subsection 110-6.1(a) of the Code. 725 ILCS 5/110-
6.1(a) (West Supp. 2023). We agree, as the circuit court pointed out on the record, that shooting
multiple people in response to one of those people throwing a punch is disproportionate and
therefore cannot qualify as self-defense. Accordingly, Peralta likely cannot negate the murder
charge by claiming self-defense. Thus, at the very least, the presumption is great that Peralta
committed the charged offenses.
¶ 12 As to the second element, the circuit court noted that “Defendant fired multiple shots into
a crowd during/after a physical altercation which was a disproportionate response to the threat.
Defendant’s PSI level corresponds with a level 3.” Again, based on the video footage, it is evident
that Peralta poses a real and present threat to other people and the community at large. The video
shows Peralta discharging his gun into a group of people on a busy Chicago street. During the 56-
second video, at least four vehicles drive down the street adjacent to the liquor store, and at least
4
1-23-1897B
one pedestrian can be seen in the area. If Peralta had missed his intended targets, there is a real
chance that an errant bullet could have struck one of the vehicles, or a nearby pedestrian. Based
on the foregoing, Peralta poses a real and present threat.
¶ 13 As to the third element, the circuit court stated that “Defendant fired multiple shots on a
city street [illegible] to an altercation at a liquor store. His PSA score corresponds with a 3.” We
find that this explanation falls short of the requirements of subsection 110-6.1(h)(1), which
mandate a “written finding summarizing the court’s reasons for concluding that the defendant
should be denied pretrial release, including why less restrictive conditions would not avoid 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.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West Supp. 2023). Here, there is no
indication in the court’s verbal ruling or written order that it considered less restrictive conditions,
let alone an explanation of why less restrictive conditions would not mitigate the threat. We
therefore remand the matter to the circuit court to reconsider its decision on this element. On
remand, we instruct the circuit court to make written findings explaining why less restrictive
conditions would not mitigate the threat Peralta poses, should the court decide to detain him. To
be clear, we express no opinion on what the ultimate decision on this third element ought to be.
Rather, we direct the circuit court to consider the possibility of less restrictive conditions under
subsection 110-10(b), and explain why or why not such alternatives would be effective to mitigate
the threat Peralta poses.
¶ 14 CONCLUSION
¶ 15 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court, and remand the
matter for consideration consistent with this order.
¶ 16 Reversed and remanded.
5