People v. Tripp , 2024 IL App (4th) 231479-U ( 2024 )

NOTICE 2024 IL App (4th) 231479-UThis Order was filed under
FILED
NO. 4-23-1479 February 16, 2024
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
Carla Bender
not precedent except in the 4th District Appellate
limited circumstances allowed IN THE APPELLATE COURT
Court, IL
under Rule 23(e)(1).
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) Winnebago County
JAYSON TRIPP, ) No. 23CF2448
Defendant-Appellant. )
) Honorable
) Scott Paccagnini,
) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Harris and Knecht concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion
in denying defendant pretrial release.
¶2 Defendant, Jayson Tripp, 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)), as amended by Public Act 101-652, § 10-255 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023),
commonly known as the Pretrial Fairness Act (Act). See Pub. Act 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1,
2023) (amending various provisions of the Act); Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 52, 223
N.E.3d 1010 (setting the Act’s effective date as September 18, 2023).
¶3 On appeal, defendant argues this court should overturn the circuit court’s decision
because the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence (1) the proof was evident or
the presumption great defendant committed a detainable offense under section 110-6.1(a) of the
Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a) (West 2022)), (2) defendant was dangerous and thereby posed a
threat, and (3) no condition of release or combination thereof could mitigate the threat defendant
posed if granted pretrial release. We affirm.
¶4 I. BACKGROUND
¶5 On October 18, 2023, the State charged defendant with one count of domestic
battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(2) (West 2022)), alleging defendant grabbed Tabitha Hawkins by
the back of the head and headbutted her with his own head.
¶6 On November 20, 2023, defendant’s arrest warrant was served, and defendant was
detained. The next day, the State filed a petition to deny defendant pretrial release under section
110-6.1 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)). The State alleged defendant was
charged with a qualifying offense, and defendant’s pretrial release posed a real and present threat
to the safety of persons or the community (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(4) (West 2022)). In support of
its petition, the State provided the following factual basis:
“On the 3rd of September, 2023, Machesney Park Deputies ***
were dispatched to 7415 Rogers Street, Machesney Park, Illinois,
61115 in response to call for Domestic Battery. Deputies met with
Tabitha Hawkins who stated that she and her boyfriend,
[defendant], had been involved in a heated argument throughout
the evening of the 2nd of September into the early morning hours
of the 3rd of September, 2023. Tabitha stated that she attempted
multiple times to remove herself from the argument by going into
separate rooms from [defendant] but he kept following her. Tabitha
-2-
said that at one point [defendant] grabbed [her] by the back of the
head and he pulled her head into hers [sic] violently and
headbutted her. [Defendant] left the residence shortly afterward.”
The State’s factual summary further provided defendant had numerous arrests for domestic
battery, two prior convictions for domestic battery, and one conviction for battery.
¶7 At the detention hearing, the State emphasized defendant’s penchant and prior
convictions for domestic violence and proffered what evidence would be presented. This proffer
was consistent with the factual basis for the State’s petition. The State further informed the
circuit court defendant had another pending felony case against him (Winnebago County case
No. 23-CF-2132) for aggravated fleeing, where police pursued defendant at speeds in excess of
90 miles per hour in a 40-mile-per-hour zone after attempting to speak with defendant shortly
after the instant domestic battery. The State also noted defendant scored an 18 on the Domestic
Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI), which placed defendant in the “high risk” category.
¶8 Defense counsel countered that since defendant’s alleged battery of Tabitha on
September 3, 2023, defendant had appeared “numerous times for other cases” and “turned
himself in *** when he found out about the warrant on the aggravated fleeing charge.” Counsel
emphasized defendant had been “a lifelong Rockford resident,” with significant ties to the
community. Counsel further asserted defendant had been self-employed for 10 years “doing the
same type of work.”
¶9 In determining whether defendant should be released from pretrial detention, the
circuit court stated it considered the parties’ arguments, the factual basis, and the information
contained in the pretrial services report. The court then held the following before granting the
State’s petition. First, the court found the State proved by clear and convincing evidence the
-3-
proof was evident or the presumption great defendant committed a detainable offense, noting
defendant “grabbed the alleged victim by the back of the head and headbutted her after the
alleged victim attempted to leave.” Next, the court pointed out defendant’s “two prior
convictions for domestic battery and prior convictions for resisting[,] battery[,] and criminal
damage to property that are spanning at least two decades.” The court further observed defendant
was “on pretrial release for aggravated fleeing *** which offense allegedly occurred after the
defendant left the residence” in the instant case. Defendant also scored an 8 out of 14 on the
Virginia Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI), “which is moderate to high, and [defendant] has
a DVSI of 18, which is high.” Finally, the court noted:
“Given the nature and circumstances of the offense, but primarily
the history and characteristics of the defendant ***, the Court finds
that there are no conditions or combinations of conditions that
reasonably assure the safety of the alleged victim or the
community for that matter, as it appears that the defendant’s priors
involved different individuals.”
¶ 10 The circuit court then entered a written order summarizing its reasons for denying
pretrial release and finding (1) defendant was charged with a detainable offense and the proof
was evident or presumption great that defendant committed the offense, (2) defendant posed a
real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community, (3) no conditions or
combination of conditions could mitigate the real and present threat, and (4) pretrial release
should be denied because less restrictive conditions would not avoid that threat. After the court
entered its written order denying defendant pretrial release, defendant filed his notice of appeal
under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(1)(iii) (eff. Oct. 19, 2023).
-4-
¶ 11 This appeal followed.
¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 13 On December 5, 2023, defendant filed a notice of appeal pursuant to Illinois
Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(2) (eff. Oct. 19, 2023). The notice of appeal indicated three relevant
bases for vacating the circuit court’s detention order: the State failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence (1) the proof was evident or the presumption great defendant committed a
detainable offense under section 110-6.1(a) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a) (West 2022)),
(2) defendant was dangerous and thereby posed a threat, and (3) no condition of release or
combination thereof could mitigate the threat defendant posed if granted pretrial release. The
Office of the State Appellate Defender, defendant’s appointed counsel on appeal, filed a
supporting memorandum laying out the reasons for reversing the court’s decision.
¶ 14 All criminal defendants are presumed eligible for pretrial release. 725 ILCS
5/110-6.1(e) (West 2022). Before denying pretrial release, the State must prove by clear and
convincing evidence (1) “the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant has
committed an offense listed in subsection (a),” (2) “the 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,” and (3) “no condition or combination of conditions set forth in subsection (b) of
Section 110-10 of this Article can mitigate (i) the real and present threat to the safety of any
person or persons or the community.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1), (2), (3)(i) (West 2022). Section
110-6.1(g)(1)-(9) of the Code instructs the circuit court to consider “the specific articulable facts
of the case” and provides nine factors the court may consider when assessing the real and present
threat allegation. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g)(1)-(9) (West 2022). If the court determines the
defendant should be denied pretrial release, the court must make written findings summarizing
-5-
the reasons for denying pretrial release, including why less restrictive conditions would not avoid
the danger posed by the defendant to any person or the community. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1)
(West 2022).
¶ 15 We have held the determination of whether pretrial release should be granted or
denied is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See People v. Jones, 2023 IL App
(4th) 230837, ¶¶ 27, 30. “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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Simmons, 2019 IL
App (1st) 191253, ¶ 9, 143 N.E.3d 833. Under this standard, a reviewing court will not substitute
its own judgment for that of the circuit court simply because it would have analyzed the proper
factors differently. People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11. Likewise, “we 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.
¶ 16 Here, we find no abuse of discretion. The record demonstrates the circuit court
weighed the statutory factors and considered the parties’ arguments, the factual basis, and the
information contained in the pretrial services report. Not only did the court determine defendant
committed a detainable offense based on the State’s proffered evidence, but defendant
acknowledged in his accompanying memorandum “defense counsel agreed that the charged
offense was detainable under the [Act].” See 720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(2) (West 2022); 725 ILCS
5/110-6.1(a)(4) (West 2022). The court then found defendant presented an ongoing threat to not
only the victim of this case, but to the community as well, and it concluded no conditions of
pretrial release could mitigate defendant’s threat to the victim or the community given
-6-
defendant’s repeated domestic-violence convictions against multiple individuals. Specifically,
the court noted the circumstances of the offense and the pending case against defendant for
aggravated fleeing, which stemmed from the instant domestic battery. See 725 ILCS 5/110-
6.1(g)(1) (West 2022). The court also pointed out defendant’s “two prior convictions for
domestic battery and prior convictions for resisting[,] battery[,] and criminal damage to property
*** spanning at least two decades.” See 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g)(2) (West 2022). The court also
noted defendant was on pretrial release in the aggravated fleeing and driving on a suspended
license case when he was arrested for this offense. Further, the court noted defendant scored an 8
out of 14 on the VPRAI, which indicated defendant presented a “moderate to high” risk, as well
as an 18 on the DVSI, “which is high.” See 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g)(9) (West 2022).
¶ 17 Accordingly, because the circuit court complied with the requirements of the
Code and made all the necessary findings, based on this record, we find no reason to conclude
the court’s decision was “arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.” Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st)
191253, ¶ 9.
¶ 18 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 19 For all these reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.
¶ 20 Affirmed.
-7-