People v. Sanchez-Segura , 2024 IL App (3d) 240082-U ( 2024 )

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).
2024 IL App (3d) 240082-UOrder filed May 14, 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. 3-24-0082
v. ) Circuit No. 23-CF-1782
)
ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ-SEGURA, ) Honorable
) David Carlson,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE DAVENPORT delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Holdridge concurred in the judgment.
Presiding Justice McDade specially concurred.
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: The circuit court failed to make the required findings before granting the State’s
petition to deny pretrial release.
¶2 On September 21, 2023, the defendant, Alejandro Sanchez-Segura, was charged with two
counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (Class X) (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1), (b)
(West 2012)) for acts occurring in 2012 and 2013. The State filed a verified petition to deny pretrial
release, alleging the defendant was charged with predatory criminal sexual assault and his release
posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person, persons, or the community under section
110-6.1(a)(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(5) (West 2022)).
The circuit court granted the petition to detain. We vacate the order of the circuit court and remand
for a new hearing.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 After a hearing in October 2023, the court granted the State’s petition, but indicated its
displeasure with bail reform and stated,
“this law wants me to make a determination that there’s some sort of clear and
convincing standard of the proof given to this Court that that case is a good case,
and I’ve got to tell you, I’m not making that decision. I am not going to make some
sort of advisory opinion and/or act like an appellate court to the Grand Jury
indicting him on this case.”
Defendant appealed, and this court vacated the detention order and remanded for a new hearing,
finding the court was required to make a finding that the State proved each of the three propositions
before granting the petition to detain, but the court refused to make a finding that the proof was
evident or presumption great that defendant committed a detainable offense. People v. Sanchez-
Segura, No. 3-23-0497 (2024) (unpublished summary order).
¶5 On remand another hearing was held in front of the same judge. The court made a number
of statements, stating,
“This is what the Appellate Court wants. They want me to make these findings.
And quite frankly, be careful what you ask for. They can sit in Ottawa and order
me to make findings and they want me to follow the bail law, so by clear and
convincing evidence I may find two out of the three.”
2
¶6 The court went on to say,
“I think for my purposes, quite frankly I don’t want to deal with this. The Appellate
Court wants me to deal with this. And the Appellate Court has made it, quite
frankly, very difficult for me to deal with certain issues regarding the management
of defendants in criminal cases. They want us to make findings, specific findings
that they don’t want to hear.”
The court continued the case for the parties to obtain more information.
¶7 At the next court date, the parties presented more argument to the court. Ultimately, the
court granted the State’s petition. In doing so, it stated, inter alia,
“[T]his State has taken on an academic exercise in some sort of social justice
reform. And unfortunately there are members of the third branch of government of
which I am a part of that appear to be rubber stamping this endeavor and are
essentially allowing for the evisceration of the powers inherent in the third branch
of government and particularly in the powers of the trial court to maintain and
monitor order in their courtroom and in their court proceedings.
So I’m going to make the findings that they want me to make. Those
findings will be as follows. I find by clear and convincing evidence that a grand
jury has indicted the defendant showing that there is probable cause that exists that
the defendant committed the offenses of predatory criminal sexual assault.
I find by clear and convincing evidence that those are detainable offenses. I
find by clear and convincing evidence that that Indictment has been returned. And
that I will leave it at that.
3
So if someone wants to appeal this decision, perhaps the justices can then
now weigh the evidence as presented here in this court and they can tell me whether
or not the evidence presented as far as a real and present threat exists based upon
the presentation of evidence here in this proceeding.”
Defendant appeals.
¶8 II. ANALYSIS
¶9 On appeal, defendant again argues the court failed to make the required findings. We
consider factual findings for the manifest weight of the evidence, but the ultimate decision to grant
or deny the State’s petition to detain is considered for an abuse of discretion. People v. Trottier,
2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. Under either standard, we consider whether the court’s
determination is arbitrary or unreasonable. Id.; see also People v. Horne, 2023 IL App (2d) 230382,
¶ 19.
¶ 10 Everyone charged with an offense is eligible for pretrial release, which may only be denied
in certain situations. 725 ILCS 5/110-2(a), 110-6.1 (West 2022). The State must file a verified
petition requesting the denial of pretrial release. Id. § 110-6.1. The State then has the burden of
proving by clear and convincing evidence (1) the proof is evident or presumption great that the
defendant committed a detainable offense, (2) the defendant poses a real and present threat to any
person, persons, or the community or is a flight risk, and (3) no conditions could mitigate this
threat or risk of flight. Id. § 110-6.1 (a), (e).
¶ 11 Here, the court again failed to make the required findings. While the court to some extent
made a finding that the proof was evident or presumption great that defendant committed a
detainable offense, it failed to make any findings related to the other two propositions. Moreover,
remarks the court made indicated it did not know that it had to make findings on all three
4
propositions and seemed to want the appellate court to make the finding on whether there was a
real and present threat. The court signed a detention order, however, it was in conflict with the oral
pronouncement, and when a court’s oral and written orders conflict, the oral pronouncement
controls. Barnes v. Lolling, 2017 IL App (3d) 150157, ¶ 23, n.8. Therefore, we vacate the order of
the circuit court and remand for a new hearing on the State’s petition to detain. On remand, the
new detention hearing should be held in front of a different judge.
¶ 12 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 13 The judgment of the circuit court of County is vacated and remanded.
¶ 14 Vacated and remanded.
¶ 15 PRESIDING JUSTICE McDADE, specially concurring:
¶ 16 Some rudimentary civics principles might be helpful here. The government of the State of
Illinois, like its federal counterpart, is comprised of three branches, each with separate functions.
Pertinent to this case, the legislative branch makes the law, and it is the function of the judicial
branch—the entirety of the judicial branch—to implement it. That is a duty we all have sworn an
oath to fulfill unless and until our State supreme court, or the Supreme Court of the United States,
finds it to be unconstitutional and relieves us of that obligation. It is not the appellate court that is
dictating the parameters of the trial court’s findings in this case; the General Assembly has
determined that responsibility for all of us.
¶ 17 I agree with remand of this matter to the circuit court, but I would not reassign it to another
judge. The trial court should review the statute carefully and do its job as directed therein.
5