People v. Jenkins , 2024 IL App (3d) 230787-U ( 2024 )

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as
precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
2024 IL App (3d) 230787-UOrder filed May 3, 2024
____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2024
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) of the 12th Judicial Circuit,
) Will County, Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Appeal No. 3-23-0787
v. ) Circuit No. 21-CF-1686
)
WILLIAM J. JENKINS, ) Honorable
) Kenneth L. Zelazo,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE HETTEL delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Brennan and Davenport concurred in the judgment.
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: We lack jurisdiction to consider defendant’s initial detention order because
defendant did not timely appeal it and affirm continued detention order because
defendant raises no argument concerning it.
¶2 The Will County circuit court entered orders to detain defendant, William J. Jenkins, on
October 24, 2023, and December 13, 2023. On December 27, 2023, defendant filed his notice of
appeal, appealing the court’s December 13, 2023, order. On appeal, defendant’s counsel argued
that the circuit court erred in entering its October 24, 2023, detention order. We lack jurisdiction
to consider that order and affirm the December 13, 2023, order.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 Defendant, William J. Jenkins, was indicted on December 9, 2021, for three counts of
delivery of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2), (d)(1) (West 2020)). Defendant’s
bond was set at $500,000, but he remained in custody. Four months later, the grand jury returned
a five-count indictment against defendant in Will County case No. 22-CF-419. In that case,
defendant’s bond was set at $1,000,000, and he remained in custody.
¶5 On October 3, 2023, defendant, as a self-represented litigant, filed a motion for pretrial
release in case No. 22-CF-419. In his motion, defendant stated that he was also indicted and
remained detained in this case. The State filed a verified petition to deny pretrial release in case
No. 22-CF-419. Following a hearing, on October 24, 2023, the court entered a joint pretrial
detention order in this case and case No. 22-CF-419, finding that the proof was evident that
defendant committed a detainable offense, he posed a real and present threat to the safety of any
person or the community, and no conditions could mitigate this threat. The court also found he had
a high likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution. The order stated that the court based its
decision on the nature and circumstances of the offenses, defendant’s prior criminal history, the
identity of any persons to whose safety defendant posed a threat and the nature of the threat,
defendant was on release at the time of the offenses, and defendant had a significant history of
obstruction, escape, and flight. A transcript from the hearing is not included in the record, and
defendant did not appeal that order.
¶6 On November 29, 2023, defendant, as a self-represented litigant, filed a motion for GPS
pretrial release in case No. 22-CF-419. In his motion, defendant again stated that he was also
2
indicted and being held in custody in this case. The court held a hearing on December 12 and 13,
2023. Counsel for defendant conceded that no motion for pretrial release was filed in this case. On
December 13, 2023, the court stated that it considered the statutory factors and determined that
GPS monitoring would not mitigate defendant’s dangerousness. The court issued a joint detention
order in this case and case No. 22-CF-419, which was substantially similar to the October detention
order.
¶7 On December 27, 2023, defendant filed his notice of appeal. The notice of appeal listed the
trial court’s December 13, 2023, order as the order being appealed. Counsel was appointed to
represent defendant in his appeal.
¶8 II. ANALYSIS
¶9 On appeal, defendant’s counsel contends that the court lacked power to enter the October
24, 2023, detention order because the State did not file a petition to detain defendant in this case.
The State responds that we lack jurisdiction to review the propriety of the October detention order
because defendant did not timely appeal that order.
¶ 10 We turn first to the question of our jurisdiction. A defendant is entitled to appeal any order
denying pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(j) (West 2022). Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)
governs appeals from orders denying pretrial release. Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h) (eff. Oct. 19, 2023). At
the time of the circuit court’s orders in this case, Rule 604(h)(2) provided: “Review shall be by
Notice of Appeal filed in the circuit court within 14 days of the entry or denial of the order from
which review is being sought.” Id. 1
1
The supreme court has since amended Rule 604(h). See Ill. S. Ct. Rule 604(h) (eff. Apr.
15, 2024)). We apply the rule in effect at the time the court’s orders were entered. See People v.
3
¶ 11 “The filing of a notice of appeal is the jurisdictional step which initiates appellate review.”
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Smith, 228 Ill. 2d 95, 104 (2008). “An untimely
notice of appeal deprives the reviewing court of jurisdiction.” People v. Hongo, 2024, IL App (1st)
232482, ¶ 25.
¶ 12 Here, the circuit court entered its initial detention order on October 24, 2023. Defendant
could have appealed that order on the basis that the circuit court lacked authority to enter it because
the State never filed a petition to detain. See People v. Shockley, 2024 IL App (5th) 240041, ¶ 18
(vacating detention order where State did not file a petition to detain). However, defendant did not
appeal the initial detention order. Instead, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the circuit court’s
order for continued detention entered on December 13, 2023. Because defendant did not timely
appeal the trial court’s October 24, 2023, initial detention order, we lack jurisdiction to review it.
See id. ¶ 28.
¶ 13 We have jurisdiction to review the December 13, 2023, order requiring defendant’s
continued detention for which defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. See id. ¶ 31. However,
defendant raises no issues with that order. While defendant’s notice of appeal checks boxes for
grounds for relief, defendant did not raise these issues in his subsequent memorandum. Defendant
has, thus, forfeited any issues raised in his notice of appeal that are not argued in his memorandum.
People v. Mitchell, 2024 IL App (3d) 230758, ¶ 15; People v. Forthenberry, 2024 IL App (5th)
231002, ¶ 42. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court’s December 13, 2023, detention order.
¶ 14 III. CONCLUSION
Ponder, 10 Ill. App. 3d 613, 619 (1973) (applying supreme court rule in effect at the time in
question, not amended version enacted later).
4
¶ 15 The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.
¶ 16 Affirmed.
5