People v. Triplett , 2024 IL App (2d) 240126-U ( 2024 )

2024 IL App (2d) 240126-UNo. 2-24-0126
Order filed May 23, 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 Lake County.
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) No. 24-CF-188
)
KENYATTA L. TRIPLETT, JR., ) Honorable
) Theodore S. Potkonjak,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE SCHOSTOK 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 the defendant pretrial release.
¶2 The defendant, Kenyatta L. Triplett, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s order granting the
State’s petition to deny him pretrial release under article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/art. 110 (West 2022)), as amended by Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan.
1, 2023), sometimes informally called the Pretrial Fairness Act (Act). See Pub. Act 102-1104, §
70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023) (amending various provisions of P.A. 101-652); Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL
129248, ¶ 52 (lifting stay and setting effective date as September 18, 2023). We affirm.
2024 IL App (2d) 240126-U¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 The road to the charge that forms the basis for the defendant’s current pretrial detention is
more roundabout than usual. The following facts are drawn from the State’s proffer in this case,
its motion for discovery, and the record in a prior pretrial detention case involving the defendant.
¶5 On February 6, 2023, the car that the defendant was driving was pulled over for a license
plate violation. At the time, the defendant was on probation on a McLean County charge of
possession of a controlled substance. The defendant remained in the car, but two men jumped out
and ran. Police gave chase and found two guns, which they sent to the crime lab for testing. The
defendant was not arrested and no charges were filed at that time.
¶6 Eleven days later, on February 17, 2023, four men arrived at a barbershop in Waukegan,
waited until the victim emerged, and then fired at least 56 rounds at him. The victim survived.
The defendant was eventually charged with attempted murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2022)),
a Class X felony, and aggravated battery with a firearm (id. § 12-3.05(e)(1)), a Class 1 felony, in
connection with this shooting.
¶7 The defendant was arrested on those charges on April 18, 2023. His conduct during the
arrest led to an additional charge of fleeing and eluding a police officer, a Class A misdemeanor.
At arraignment, his bail was set at $1 million. He was eventually able to post bond and was
released on June 30, 2023.
¶8 The defendant remained out on bond until September 20, 2023, when the trial court ordered
him detained on a petition for pretrial detention under the Act that had been filed by the State in
August. The defendant appealed the pretrial detention order.
¶9 On January 10, 2024, the crime lab issued a report on the guns found after the defendant’s
passengers fled the traffic stop in February 2023. One of the guns was a Glock 21 Gen .45 handgun
-2-
2024 IL App (2d) 240126-Uwith an extended clip and a device that made it fully automatic. The forensic report stated that a
search of CODIS had found an association between DNA swabbed from the grip of that gun and
a DNA profile of the defendant. The report also stated that “[t]his association is not confirmed
without further comparison analysis” and that a DNA sample from the defendant would be
necessary to confirm the association.
¶ 10 On January 17, 2024, we reversed the defendant’s pretrial detention, finding that the State’s
August 2023 petition for pretrial detention was untimely. People v. Tripplett, 2024 IL App (2d)
230388. Pursuant to our reversal, the defendant was released.
¶ 11 On January 25, the State charged the defendant with unauthorized use of a weapon,
specifically, with possessing the Glock within the passenger compartment of a vehicle (id. § 24-
1(a)(7)(i)). When the defendant learned of the charge, he voluntarily surrendered to the police.
¶ 12 The State filed a petition to detain the defendant. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022). The
State alleged that there was probable cause to show that the defendant committed the alleged
offenses and that his pretrial release posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person or
persons or the community. The State noted that after the charged offense occurred, the defendant
had been charged with attempted murder and aggravated battery in connection with the Waukegan
shooting. Further, the two offenses both involved firearms, indicating that the defendant posed a
threat to the community. The State argued that no set of conditions could mitigate this threat
because electronic monitoring could not “confine the Defendant to his home with certainty.”
¶ 13 The defendant opposed pretrial detention. First, he argued that there was not clear and
convincing evidence that he committed the present weapons offense. The Glock was presumed to
have been discarded by one of the passengers who fled, and he had denied to police that the gun
was his. The DNA report showed an “association,” not a confirmed match. Further, he had never
-3-
2024 IL App (2d) 240126-Ubeen convicted and had never provided a DNA sample, and thus it was unclear how there could
be any association with his DNA in CODIS.
¶ 14 He also argued that the State had not shown that he posed a risk to the community. Prior
to the traffic stop that led to the current charge, the defendant had little criminal history and no
convictions, merely a drug offense for which he received probation. As for the charges from the
shooting, the defendant had remained out on bond for two and a half months, and during that time
he had appeared for court as ordered and had not reoffended. The defendant argued that these last
facts showed that he could be released with conditions, and he would not reoffend and would
continue to appear for court.
¶ 15 At the hearing on the State’s petition, the State tendered the charging document, the
defendant’s pretrial services report, and a photograph of the Glock showing the extended clip.
After hearing the parties’ arguments, the trial court granted the State’s petition for pretrial
detention.
¶ 16 The trial court found that the State had presented clear and convincing evidence that the
defendant had committed the charged offense. The gun appeared to have been discarded by one
of the passengers in the defendant’s car, indicating that it had been in the car with the defendant.
Further, the crime lab tested the grip of the gun and “got a hit” for the defendant’s DNA. The trial
court noted that “down the line” the defendant might be able to raise a reasonable doubt about
when or even whether he had held the Glock and whether he “possessed” it on the date charged,
but that was not the standard confronting the court during the pretrial detention hearing.
¶ 17 As for whether the defendant posed a threat to the safety of the community, the trial court
focused on the charges currently faced by the defendant, which included not only the weapons
charge in this case but also the charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery, and the fleeing
-4-
2024 IL App (2d) 240126-Uand eluding charge. The trial court also noted that he had been on probation for the McLean
County drug charge when he committed the current offense. Both of the February 2023 incidents
involved guns, and both were Class X felonies. Further, the McLean County drug charge was a
felony. Based on the defendant’s criminal history and the characteristics of the charged offenses,
the trial court found that the defendant was “inherently dangerous to the community.” Without
elaborating on its reasoning, the trial court also found that there were no conditions that could
mitigate the threat posed by the defendant.
¶ 18 The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
¶ 19 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 20 On appeal, the defendant repeats the arguments he raised below. First, he argues that the
State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was evident or the
presumption great that he committed the charged offense, i.e., that he possessed the Glock.
Second, he argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing
evidence that defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or
the community based on the specific and articulable facts of the case. Finally, he argues that the
State failed to meet its burden of proving that no condition or combination of conditions could
mitigate the real and present threat to the victim or the community.
¶ 21 In Illinois, all persons charged with an offense are eligible for pretrial release. 725 ILCS
5/110-2(a), 110-6.1(e) (West 2022). Pretrial release is governed by article 110 of the Code as
amended by the Act. Id. § 110-1 et seq. Under the Code, as amended by the Act, a defendant’s
pretrial release may only be denied in certain statutorily limited situations. Id. §§ 110-2(a), 110-
6.1(e).
-5-
2024 IL App (2d) 240126-U¶ 22 Upon filing a verified petition requesting denial of pretrial release, the State has the burden
to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the proof is evident or the presumption great
that the defendant has committed a qualifying offense (id. § 110-6.1(e)(1)), (2) the defendant’s
pretrial release would pose a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the
community (id. § 110-6.1(e)(2)), and (3) no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate
the real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community or prevent the defendant’s
willful flight from prosecution (id. § 110-6.1(e)(3)). “Evidence is clear and convincing if it leaves
no reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of fact as to the truth of the proposition in question
***.” Chaudhary v. Department of Human Services, 2023 IL 127712, ¶ 74.
¶ 23 We review the court’s decision to deny pretrial release under a bifurcated standard. People
v. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. Specifically, we review under the manifest-weight-
of-the-evidence standard the court’s factual findings as to dangerousness, flight risk, and whether
conditions of release could mitigate those risks. Id. A finding is against the manifest weight of
the evidence only where it is unreasonable or not based on the evidence presented. Id. We review
for an abuse of discretion the trial court’s ultimate determination regarding pretrial release. Id.An abuse of discretion also occurs only when the trial court’s determination is arbitrary, fanciful,
or unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Id.¶ 24 The defendant first argues that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence
that the proof is evident or the presumption great that he committed the charged offenses.
However, the State offered evidence supporting the conclusion that the Glock had been in the
passenger compartment of the defendant’s car, as it was found as police searched for the two
passengers who fled. Further, there was DNA evidence that the defendant had held the Glock, as
DNA associated with him was on the grip. The trial court’s determination that there was clear and
-6-
2024 IL App (2d) 240126-Uconvincing evidence that the defendant possessed the gun was not against the manifest weight of
the evidence.
¶ 25 The defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient because the DNA was only an
“association” and the origin of that association was unclear, given that he had never provided a
DNA sample to the State. These arguments lack merit. First, although the term “association” may
seem vague, it refers to a genetic match between two or more DNA profiles in the Combined DNA
Index System or CODIS. In Illinois, after such a match is identified, comparison from a known
sample of the accused’s DNA is routinely requested. That comparison may either confirm the
match or exonerate the accused. Second, the defendant’s DNA profile could be in CODIS even if
he had not knowingly provided a sample. CODIS is a database of genetic information maintained
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In addition to DNA samples provided by convicted
offenders, it may also contain DNA from crime scene evidence, unidentified remains, missing
persons, and potential relatives. Thus, the defendant’s contention that he had not knowingly
provided DNA does not refute the association found by CODIS.
¶ 26 The defendant also argues that, even if he had held the Glock at some point, there was no
evidence about when or how that occurred. However, as the trial court noted, such arguments are
better suited for trial. The evidence required at a detention hearing is less than required at trial.
People v. Luna, 2024 IL App (2d) 230568, ¶ 9. Further, if in the future the State is able to obtain
a DNA sample from the defendant (as requested) and it does not confirm his connection to the
Glock, the defendant can renew his request for pretrial release.
¶ 27 The defendant next argues that the State failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence,
that he poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community. It
is true that the defendant did not reoffend during the two and a half months of his pretrial release
-7-
2024 IL App (2d) 240126-Ulast summer. However, section 110-6.1(g) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g) (West 2022)) also
permits the trial court to consider the nature and circumstances of the charges facing the defendant,
his criminal history, and whether he was on probation at the time of the offense(s) in determining
whether his pretrial release would pose a threat to the safety of the community. Thus, the trial
court did not err in considering that (a) both of the incidents that led to most serious charges
currently facing the defendant involve firearms and (b) that the defendant was on probation at the
time he committed both offenses. We cannot say that, on balance, the trial court abused its
discretion in determining that the defendant presents a real and present threat to the community.
¶ 28 Finally, the defendant argues that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence
that no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the threat he posed to the victim.
Where the trial court finds that the State proved a valid threat to the safety of any person or the
community, the court must determine which pretrial release conditions, “if any, will reasonably
ensure the appearance of a defendant as required or the safety of any other person or the community
and the likelihood of compliance by the defendant with all the conditions of pretrial release.” 725
ILCS 5/110-5(a)(1)-(6) (West 2022). In reaching its determination, the trial court must consider:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the
defendant; (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant; and (4) the seriousness of the threat
the defendant poses to any person or the community. Id.¶ 29 In determining that no conditions of release could mitigate the threat the defendant posed
to the victim, the trial court considered all of these. The trial court also considered that the
defendant was alleged to have committed serious offenses involving firearms while on probation.
The trial court’s finding that no conditions could mitigate the threat posed by the defendant’s
release was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
-8-
2024 IL App (2d) 240126-U¶ 30 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 31 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County. 1
¶ 32 Affirmed.
1
We apply the newly amended Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(8), which allows a
disposition to be filed 100 days from the date the appellant filed the notice of appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R.
604(h)(8) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024), as the amendment to Rule 604(h)(8) is procedural in nature. See
People v. Harris, 2024 IL App (2d) 240070, ¶ 1 n.1.
-9-