People v. Schwab , 2024 IL App (2d) 230600-U ( 2024 )

2024 IL App (2d) 230600-UNo. 2-23-0600
Order filed February 21, 2024
NOTICE: 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).
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
OF ILLINOIS, ) of Kane County.
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) No. 23-CF-2679
)
CHARLES F. SCHWAB, ) Honorable
) William G. Engerman
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice McLaren and Justice Birkett concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The trial court did not err in denying defendant pretrial release where the police
synopsis presented sufficient evidence that defendant was driving under the
influence of alcohol, defendant’s criminal history included four prior convictions
for driving under the influence which supported the trial court’s finding of
dangerousness, and defendant’s five convictions for driving with a suspended
license and failure to comply with sentencing requirements in his last driving under
the influence conviction supported the trial court’s finding that defendant would
not comply with less restrictive conditions. Affirmed
¶1 Defendant, Charles F. Schwab, appeals from the denial of his pretrial release under section
110-6.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)).
The Office of the State Appellate Defender declined to file a memorandum pursuant to Illinois
2024 IL App (2d) 230600-USupreme Court Rule 604(h) (eff. Oct. 19, 2023), and defendant stands on his notice of appeal. For
the following reasons, we affirm.
¶2 On December 11, 2023, defendant was charged by complaint with two counts of
aggravated driving under the influence (DUI) (fifth violation, and blood alcohol content of .16 or
more) (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a) (West 2022)), two counts of DUI (id.), driving while license
suspended or revoked (id. § 6-303(a)), leaving the scene of an accident (id. § 11-4.2(a)), operating
an uninsured motor vehicle (id. § 3-707(a)), transportation or possession of open alcohol by driver
(id. § 11-502(a)), and driving with expired license plates (id. § 3-413(f)). That same day, the State
filed a verified petition to deny defendant pretrial release, and a hearing was held. Following the
hearing, the trial court entered an order denying defendant pretrial release.
¶3 Defendant argues in his timely notice of appeal that the State failed to show by clear and
convincing evidence that (1)the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed
the charged offenses because the State offered only the police synopsis into evidence;
(2) defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person persons or the community,
because defendant’s criminal history was remote, his last DUI conviction was in 2013, and
defendant’s criminal history was entirely non-violent; and (3) no condition or combination of
conditions can mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the
community, because electronic home monitoring could mitigate the threat to the safety of others.
¶4 In short, defendant’s first three arguments perfunctorily challenge all three findings
required to deny a defendant pretrial release (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1-3) (West 2022)). Defendant
declined to file a memorandum, and thus the issues on appeal and arguments in support are limited
to the notice of appeal. We therefore review only those issues based on the record presented.
People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 13.
-2-
2024 IL App (2d) 230600-U¶5 On an appeal from an order denying a defendant pretrial release, we review whether the
trial court’s findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Trottier, 2023 IL
App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence when it is
unreasonable. People v. Sims, 2022 IL App (2d) 200391, ¶ 72. We review the trial court’s ultimate
decision regarding pretrial release for an abuse of discretion. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317,
¶ 13.
¶6 To begin, we reject defendant’s argument that a synopsis is per se insufficient to
demonstrate that the proof is evident or presumption great that defendant committed the charged
offenses. At a pretrial detention hearing, the State is explicitly permitted by the Act to present
evidence “by way of proffer based upon reliable information.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(f)(2) (West
2022). Indeed, the Act additionally exempts detention hearings from the rules of evidence. Id.§ 6.1(f)(5). Without explaining why this police synopsis is not “reliable,” counsel’s notice of
appeal simply argues that the synopsis is “insufficient.” This bare conclusory argument is patently
without merit and the practice of rotely including it in every notice of appeal should be
discontinued. People v. Mancilla, 2024 IL App (2d) 230505, ¶ 34.
¶7 Further, the evidence in the synopsis was more than sufficient to show by clear and
convincing evidence that the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed the
charged offenses. According to the synopsis, officers responded to a hit and run accident. The
driver of the other vehicle followed the vehicle driven by defendant, and officers were eventually
able to stop defendant’s vehicle. The contacting officer observed that defendant was “disoriented
and clueless.” Officers placed the vehicle in park and removed the keys, as defendant was not
following directions. Officers observed damage to the front of defendant’s vehicle and that the
airbags had deployed. They also observed a half-empty liter bottle of Bacardi rum on the passenger
-3-
2024 IL App (2d) 230600-Ufloorboards. Defendant was lethargic answering questions, had bloodshot eyes, was slurring his
speech, and behaving argumentatively. Defendant was transported to the hospital and a
preliminary blood draw resulted in a blood alcohol content of 0.257.
¶8 Regarding dangerousness, in addition to the synopsis, the State presented defendant’s
criminal history which included DUIs from 1982, 1984, 1990, and 2013, as well as five driving
while license suspended convictions from 1988, 1993, 1994, 2014, and 2018. In all of the driving
while license suspended convictions, except the one in 1988, defendant’s license was suspended
as a result of a DUI. Additionally, defendant was not sentenced on the 2013 DUI until 2017, and
as part of his sentence defendant was sentenced to participate in 90 days of secure continuous
remote alcohol monitoring (SCRAM), which he did not complete. Additionally, defendant was
sentenced to 300 hours community service for the 2018 driving with a suspended license charge,
which he did not complete.
¶9 Defendant’s contention that his criminal history is remote and non-violent does little to
mitigate the threat defendant poses to the community. Defendant’s 40-year history of drinking and
driving indicates that he lacks control and is at an extremely high risk to repeat his behavior. In
addition, the circumstances of this case, including a collision with another vehicle in which air
bags deployed followed by flight from the scene, clearly support the court’s finding that defendant
represents a real and present threat to the safety of the community.
¶ 10 Regarding less restrictive conditions, the trial court found that defendant’s repeated
willingness to drive with a suspended license indicates that defendant is unlikely to comply with
any conditions the court might impose. Further, defendant’s failure to comply with SCRAM
monitoring conditions on his last DUI probation, and the fact that he had a blood alcohol content
three times the legal limit in the instant case, demonstrate that defendant is unable to control his
-4-
2024 IL App (2d) 230600-Ualcohol consumption. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to show that no condition or
combination of conditions (including home monitoring) would mitigate the real and present threat
defendant posed to the safety of the community.
¶ 11 For these reasons, the trial court did not err in denying defendant pretrial release and we
affirm the judgment of the Kane County circuit court.
¶ 12 Affirmed.
-5-