People v. Jackson , 2024 IL App (3d) 240086-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) 240086-UOrder filed May 17, 2024
____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2024
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) of the 18th Judicial Circuit,
) Du Page County, Illinois.
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Appeal No. 3-24-0086
v. ) Circuit No. 20-CF-76
)
TIMOTHY JACKSON, ) The Honorable
) Margaret M. O’Connell,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE HETTEL delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Holdridge and Peterson concurred in the judgment.
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: Trial court did not err in detaining defendant where, while on probation for felony
escape, he was charged with 11 felonies in this case, failed to appear in court and
was found in possession of a firearm, ammunition and drug paraphernalia.
¶2 While in pretrial custody, defendant filed a motion seeking release. The State filed a
verified petition to deny pretrial release. Following a hearing, the circuit court denied defendant’s
motion and granted the State’s petition. Defendant appeals, arguing that (1) the State’s petition
was untimely, (2) the State did not present any evidence, (3) the court “refused to consider GPS
monitoring or similar conditions,” and (4) there was a conflict of interest between counsel and
defendant. We affirm.
¶3 BACKGROUND
¶4 While on probation for felony escape (18-CF-1077), Defendant Timothy Jackson, was
indicted on February 13, 2020, in this case (20-CF-176) for two counts of unlawful possession of
a weapon by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2020)), aggravated unlawful use of a weapon
(id. § 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(C), (d)(1)), three counts of armed violence (id. §§ 33A-2(a), 33A-3(a)),
two counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (id. § 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A), (a)(3)(C), (d)(3),
(d)(4)), theft (id. § 16-1(a)(4)(A), (b)(4)), unlawful possession of a controlled substance (720 ILCS
570/402(c) (West 2020)), and driving while license revoked (625 ILCS 5/6-303(a), (d-3) (West
2020)). Defendant posted bond, but his bond was increased when he was charged with additional
offenses in Case No. 20-CF-1888, and defendant remained in custody.
¶5 On December 23, 2023, defendant filed a motion seeking pretrial release in four of his
pending cases: 18-CF-1026, 20-CF-106, 20-CF-76, and 21-CF-1888. 1 On January 9, 2024, the
State filed a verified petition to deny pretrial release in this case and case No. 20-CF-1888, alleging
defendant was charged with a forcible felony, 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)(1.5) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1.5) (West 2022)). The State also alleged that
defendant had a high likelihood of flight to avoid prosecution.
¶6 A. Petition to Detain
¶7 Attached to the State’s verified petition was a narrative setting forth the following factual
basis. On October 19, 2019, the Wheaton Police Department received a 911 call reporting a
1
Defendant filed multiple similar motions before this but withdrew them before they could be ruled on.
2
physical domestic incident. Officers were dispatched to the address, which belonged to defendant’s
girlfriend, Shelby Richmond. There had been other domestic incidents at the apartment. The
apartment was entered, and Richmond and her three children were found safe. Richmond was
interviewed and indicated that she and defendant were arguing earlier in the evening. She also
showed officers text messages that the defendant had sent her around 3 a.m., indicating that he was
in the area and wanted to be let in. Richmond refused to let defendant in her apartment.
¶8 On January 8, 2020, Wheaton Police were looking for defendant and saw him driving a
BMW sedan while his license was revoked for a DUI conviction. Officers caught up to defendant
at a convenience store, arrested him, and prepared the BMW for towing. While taking an inventory
of the car, a loaded pistol was found on the driver’s side. In the center console, a credit card
belonging to defendant was found. Under his bank card were blank white plastic cards known to
officers to be used to encode other people’s information and used in identity thefts. A search
warrant was executed on the rest of the car, and in the trunk, officers found a stolen Chicago Police
Department ballistic vest, a scale with a white powdery substance and other items of drug
paraphernalia, a loaded magazine, and a box of ammunition. The items of drug paraphernalia tested
positive for cocaine. Defendant’s DNA was found on the firearm. Defendant’s cellphone was
forensically extracted, and on the phone were multiple photos of defendant with guns, one
appearing to be the pistol taken from the BMW. Additionally, there were text messages from
defendant trying to sell the ballistic vest and guns. Finally, there were multiple photos of what
appeared to be crack cocaine and messages that appeared to be defendant engaging in the sale of
cocaine. Defendant posted bond in this case.
¶9 While out on bond in this case, defendant was charged in case No. 21-CF-1888 with
aggravated unlawful restraint (720 ILCS 5/10-3.1(a) (West 2020)), unlawful restraint (id. § 10-
3
3(a)), armed violence (id. §§ 33A-2(a), 33A-3(a)), six counts of unlawful use or possession of a
weapon by a felon (UPWF) (id. § 24-1.1(a), (e)), and driving while license revoked (625 ILCS
5/6-303(a), (d-3) (West 2020)). Defendant failed to appear in court after the State charged him in
that case. On December 17, 2021, defendant was picked up in Wheeling and taken into custody on
all outstanding warrants. His bond in this case was increased, and he has been in custody ever
since.
¶ 10 B. Pretrial Detention Hearing
¶ 11 Defendant’s pretrial detention hearing was held on January 22, 2024. The court indicated
that it read the factual basis as provided in the petition. The State highlighted defendant’s criminal
history, which included convictions for unlawful possession of a controlled substance (14-CF-
882), unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (15-CF-70), as well as felony escape (18-CF-
1077) for which defendant was still on probation. The State argued that defendant’s escape
conviction “sheds light that the Defendant is a willful flight risk *** and will avoid apprehension
at all cost[s].” Defense counsel argued that defendant had never been convicted of a violent
offense.
¶ 12 The court granted the petition under both dangerousness and flight, finding that the State
met its burden by clear and convincing evidence. In doing so, the court indicated that defendant
posed a threat to Richmond and possessed a weapon, when “there’s no legal way for him to have
been able to do that.” The court noted that defendant had a felony escape charge and there were
no conditions available to mitigate the threat defendant posed.
¶ 13 ANALYSIS
¶ 14 On appeal, defendant argues (1) the State’s petition was untimely, (2) the State did not
present any evidence, (3) the court “refused to consider GPS monitoring or similar conditions,”
4
and (4) there was a conflict of interest between counsel and defendant. We consider whether factual
findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence, but the ultimate decision to grant or deny
the State’s petition to detain is reviewed 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.
¶ 15 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
defendant committed a detainable offense, (2) 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). Sections 110-5(a) and 110-6.1(g) set forth factors for
the court to consider when determining dangerousness and any conditions. Id. §§ 110-5(a), 110-
6.1(g).
¶ 16 First, we have already considered the issue of the State’s timeliness in People v. Kurzeja,
2023 IL App (3d) 230434, ¶¶ 14-15. In Kurzeja, we stated that defendants who were arrested prior
to the implementation of bail reform
“can either ‘elect to stay in detention until such time as the previously set monetary
security may be paid’ (People v. Rios, 2023 IL App (5th) 230724, ¶ 16), or file a
motion to modify. If defendant chooses the latter option, the State may file a
responding petition. ‘[O]nce a defendant elects “to have their pretrial conditions
reviewed anew” (Rios, 2023 IL App (5th) 230724, ¶ 16), the matter returns to the
proverbial square one, where the defendant may argue for the most lenient pretrial
5
release conditions, and the State may make competing arguments.’ People v. Jones,
2023 IL App (4th) 230837, ¶ 23. ‘This is analogous to when a change in the
sentencing law occurs after a defendant has committed the offense—the defendant
is given the opportunity to choose to be sentenced under that law that existed at the
time of the offense or the newly enacted law.’ Rios, 2023 IL App (5th) 230724, ¶
17.” Kurzeja, 2023 IL App (3d) 230434, ¶ 14.
Thus, the State is permitted to file a responsive petition if the defendant files a motion to reopen
the conditions of release. See id. ¶ 15. Here, defendant filed a motion seeking pretrial release, and
the State properly filed a petition to detain in response to that motion.
¶ 17 Second, while defendant argues that the State presented no live witnesses or physical
evidence, the statute specifically states that the State “may present evidence at the hearing by way
of proffer,” (id. § 110-6.1(f)(2)) and the rules of evidence do not apply to the hearing (id. § 110-
6.1(f)(5)). Through the factual basis, petition, and hearing, the State provided evidence and
argument regarding the factors in section 110-5(a), including the nature and circumstances of the
offense and the history and characteristics of defendant. Id. Defendant was charged with 11 felony
offenses in this case while on probation for felony escape. While out on bond in this case,
defendant was charged with 10 additional felonies and failed to appear in court. Defendant was in
possession of a weapon, ammunition and drug paraphernalia. The court found defendant dangerous
and a flight risk and indicated that no conditions would mitigate the threat defendant posed. While
the court did not specifically mention GPS monitoring, it was not required to do so.
¶ 18 Based on the evidence and argument presented, it was not against the manifest weight of
the evidence for the court to determine that defendant was dangerous, a flight risk, and unlikely to
6
comply with any conditions of pretrial release. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in
granting the State’s petition.
¶ 19 Finally, while defendant argues that there was a conflict of interest between him and
defense counsel, the limited record before us shows that defendant was given new counsel earlier
in the proceedings when he brought a conflict of interest to the court’s attention. There is no
indication in the record that there was any conflict between defendant and his new counsel.
¶ 20 CONCLUSION
¶ 21 The judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed.
¶ 22 Affirmed.
7