People v. Meraz , 2024 IL App (2d) 230480-U ( 2024 )

2024 IL App (2d) 230480-UNo. 2-23-0480
Order filed February 1, 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-2385
)
VICTOR H. MERAZ, ) Honorable
) John A. Barsanti,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________
PRESIDING JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Jorgensen and Kennedy concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Defendant filed a form notice of appeal from his detention order, adding only
conclusory statements; he did not file a supporting memorandum. The record
supports the trial court’s findings that defendant committed the qualifying offense
and no less restrictive conditions could mitigate the danger he posed. Affirmed.
¶2 Defendant, Victor H. Meraz, timely appeals the detention order entered on November 6,
2023, pursuant to Public Act 101-652, § 10-255 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as the
Pretrial Fairness Act (Act). This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule
604(h) (eff. Oct. 19, 2023).
2024 IL App (2d) 230480-U¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 Defendant was charged with unlawful possession or use of a firearm by a felon in violation
of 725 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2022). Count I alleges that defendant possessed a firearm at a time
when he was a convicted felon, and the firearm did not have a serial number. Count II alleges that
defendant committed the offense of unlawful possession or use of a firearm by a felon and alleges
that defendant had been convicted of a felony at a time when he possessed firearm ammunition.
Count III alleges that defendant committed the offense of possession of a firearm while his FOID
card was invalid or not eligible in violation of 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1) (West 2022). Count IV alleges
that defendant possessed or transported a firearm with no serial number in violation of 720 ILCS
5/24-5.1(d) (West 2022). Count V alleges defendant committed the offense of resisting a police
officer in violation of id. § 31-1(a)(1). Count VI alleges that defendant committed the offense of
criminal damage to property not exceeding five hundred dollars in violation of id. § 21-1(a)(1).
Count VII alleges that defendant committed the offense of theft of less than five hundred dollars
in violation of id. § 16-1(a)(4). Such a violation made defendant eligible for denial of pretrial
release. See 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (a)(1) (West 2022).
¶5 We review the trial court’s order under a bifurcated standard of review. People v. Trottier,
2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. We review the trial court’s factual findings to determine whether
they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. A finding is against the manifest weight
of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent or if the finding is unreasonable,
arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. Id. We review the court’s ultimate determination
regarding pretrial release for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the
court’s decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would take
the view adopted by the trial court. Id.-2-
2024 IL App (2d) 230480-U¶6 II. ANALYSIS
¶7 Defendant raises two claims of error in his notice of appeal, and he declined to file a
supporting Rule 604(h) memorandum. The first claim is that the State had not proved the offense
charged. He elaborated on the form notice of appeal: “The State failed to meet its burden because
the offense is based off of the testimony of one witness who did not see some of the actions.” The
second claim of error was whether no “condition or combination of conditions can mitigate the
real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community.” His elaboration
was: “Mr. Meraz indicated that he had two other addresses where he could reside at during this
case. There are pretrial services, such as electronic home monitoring that would have sufficed if
Mr. Meraz were to stay at another address.”
¶8 We have reviewed the record and believe that the following excerpt refutes defendant’s
first claim and its elaboration—the State “failed to meet its burden because the offense is based
off of the testimony of one witness who did not see some of the actions”:
“I [Officer Pedota] know Meraz to be a convicted felon and unable to
possession [sic] firearms. Officer Thurman gave chase and grabbed onto Meraz, who began
to resist him. Meraz had his hand by his waistband. I assist [sic] Officer Thurman and we
redirected Meraz off of the porch onto the cement where there was more ground to control
Meraz. Officer Thurman grabbed Meraz’s right arm and I grabbed Meraz’s left arm. Meraz
was placed into handcuffs. Meraz was turned over to search and the butt of black handgun
was sticking out of his pants. Officer Thurman grabbed the handgun to secure the weapon.”
¶9 Relative to this account, the trial court stated: “Also on that fact pattern, which I thought is
important, is that the officer who was in the fact pattern, in the synopsis, actually did see the gun
-3-
2024 IL App (2d) 230480-Uin the defendant’s waistband.” We determine that the officer’s statement, witnessing the gun being
in the defendant’s pants, was sufficient to establish the commission of the qualifying offense.
¶ 10 As for the second claim of error and its elaboration—“Mr. Meraz indicated that he had two
other addresses where he could reside at during this case. There are pre-trial services, such as
electronic home monitoring that would have sufficed if Mr. Meraz were to stay at another
address”—the court had the following factors to consider with respect to alternatives to denial of
release. Defendant had prior convictions for unlawful use of a weapon. Defendant was on bond in
case No. 22-CF-1029 at the time of this incident. A condition of that bond was that defendant was
not to possess a firearm or dangerous weapon. Defendant violated his pretrial conditions on August
11, 2023, in that he failed to check in with pretrial services as required. In finding that “no less
restrictive conditions could mitigate the danger posed by the defendant,” the court stated, “we tried
the restrictive conditions on the defendant and they did not work.” These factors are supported by
the manifest weight of the evidence and the denial of release was not an abuse of discretion.
¶ 11 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 12 We affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County.
¶ 13 Affirmed.
-4-