People v. Davis , 2024 IL App (3d) 240138-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) 240138-UOrder filed May 29, 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, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 3-23-0138
) Circuit No. 23-CF-2007
)
JAMES L. DAVIS, JR., ) Honorable
) Carmen Goodman,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the judgment of the court.
Justice Albrecht concurred in the judgment.
Presiding Justice McDade dissented.
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: The trial court’s decision to continue to detain defendant was not an abuse of
discretion.
¶2 Defendant, James L. Davis, Jr., appeals the trial court’s decision that his continued
detention was necessary. Defendant argues that that the proof was not evident that he committed
the offense, based on a motion to suppress he intends to file. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 Defendant was charged on November 2, 2023, with three counts of unlawful possession of
a weapon by a felon (Class 2) (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a), (e) (West 2022)) and obstructing justice
(Class 4) (id. § 31-4(a)(1), (b)(1)). The State filed a verified petition to deny pretrial release,
alleging defendant was charged with a nonprobationable 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)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1) (West 2022)).
¶5 The factual basis provided that at 11:27 p.m. on October 31, 2023, an officer was on patrol
and saw a PT cruiser that was wanted for aggravated fleeing and eluding. The officer followed the
vehicle, saw it park, and three individuals exited the vehicle. The officer activated the police lights.
Two of the subjects stopped, but defendant took off running toward a residence. The officer
followed him, made it to the front door, and the door slammed and locked. The officer forced the
door open and heard defendant running down the stairs towards the basement. The officer gave
chase and announced, “Police, you’re under arrest.” The officer went to the basement, heard a door
slam shut, and heard furniture being moved around. As the officer approached the door, defendant
exited, was out of breath, and indicated that he did not know it was the police chasing him.
Defendant had live ammunition in his pocket. A backpack was located in the room defendant
exited. The backpack had a loaded semi-automatic pistol with an extended magazine and an extra,
loaded extended magazine. Defendant did not live at the residence. The officer spoke with the
resident who said she did not have a semi-automatic handgun and had no knowledge of one being
in the residence. Defendant made spontaneous statements that the gun was his, someone killed his
brother, and he needed a gun for protection. Defendant made a phone call and indicated to the
person that he was caught with his “stick.”
2
¶6 Defendant was on bond for unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon from August 24,
2023. He had an active failure to appear warrant for his arrest for a missed court date. His criminal
history included reckless discharge of a firearm, unlawful possession of a stolen firearm, three
convictions for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, aggravated battery, domestic battery, and
resisting a peace officer. A pretrial risk assessment indicated that he was a Level 4 risk.
¶7 The record indicates that a hearing was held on November 2, 2023, after which the court
granted the State’s petition. His detention was revisited multiple times, including on January 10,
2024, and the court continued to find that detention was necessary. Defendant appealed the court’s
January 10 order, and this court affirmed. People v. Davis, 2024 IL App (3d) 240029-U.
¶8 Another hearing was held on February 13, 2024, which is the subject of this appeal.
Defense counsel indicated that he anticipated filing a motion to suppress. Based on the upcoming
motion to suppress, counsel stated, “I don’t believe holding my client in the interim does anything
as far as further justice in the circumstance, in fact, it is more of an injustice as my client is sitting
in custody when he should not have been stopped or detained for that matter.” The State said there
were no new facts presented and “[w]hether counsel has an opinion for his motion to suppress,
that is his opinion.” Defense counsel stated that the firearm was “found in another container that
was in a house that my client did not live in” and there was no indication that the backpack
belonged to defendant. The court found that continued detention was necessary.
¶9 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 10 On appeal, defendant solely argues that the proof was not evident that he committed the
offense, based on the motion to suppress he intends to file. 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.
3
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.
¶ 11 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).
¶ 12 For subsequent hearings, as the one at issue here, the statute only requires the court to find
that “continued detention is necessary to avoid a real and present threat to the safety of any person
or persons or the community, based on the specific articulable facts of the case, or to prevent the
defendant's willful flight from prosecution.” Id. § 110-6.1(i-5). “Although this determination
necessarily entails consideration of the threat or flight risk posed by a defendant and the potential
mitigation of such threat or flight risk by conditions of release, the Code does not require the court
to again make specific findings that the State proved the three propositions by clear and convincing
evidence as required at the initial hearing.” People v. Casey, 2024 IL App (3d) 230568, ¶ 13.
¶ 13 Here, the proffer indicated that defendant was a convicted felon, was on bond, and had a
warrant out for his arrest. Despite these facts, defendant possessed a weapon and ammunition. The
fact that defendant intended to file a motion to suppress did not change this. Taking the evidence
before us, we cannot say the court’s decision to continue to detain defendant was an abuse of
discretion.
¶ 14 III. CONCLUSION
4
¶ 15 The judgment of the circuit court of County is affirmed.
¶ 16 Affirmed.
¶ 17 PRESIDING JUSTICE McDADE, dissenting:
¶ 18 I dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm the circuit court’s order providing for
defendant’s continued detention.
¶ 19 As the majority notes, this court earlier affirmed the circuit court’s original order granting
the State’s verified petition to deny pretrial release in this case. I dissented from the majority’s
decision to affirm, finding that defendant’s mere possession of a firearm, even coupled with his
history of reckless discharge of a firearm and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, did not rise to
the level of dangerousness contemplated under section 110-6.1(e)(2) of the statute. See Davis,
2024 IL App (3d) 240029-U, ¶¶ 19–21. I further found that, because the State had not sufficiently
proven defendant’s alleged dangerousness, it also could not be said that no conditions could
mitigate that dangerousness. For similar reasons, I continue to find that the State failed to meet its
burden of proof under sections 110-6.1(e)(2) and 110-6.1(e)(3) of the statute, and would reverse
the circuit court’s judgment for an abuse of discretion.
5