People v. Castillo , 2024 IL App (1st) 232315 ( 2024 )

2024 IL App (1st) 232315SIXTH DIVISION
February 7, 2024
No. 1-23-2315B
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
) of Cook County.
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. )
) No. 2023CR05346
VERONICA CASTILLO )
) Honorable
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Margaret M. Ogarek
) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE C.A. WALKER delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Oden Johnson and Justice Hyman concurred in the judgment.
OPINION
¶1 Defendant Veronica Castillo appeals the circuit court’s order continuing her pretrial
detention pursuant to article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, as amended by Public
Act 101-652, § 10-255, and Public Act 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan 1, 2023) (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1)
(West 2022) (commonly referred to as the “Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today
Act” or “SAFE-T Act”) (“the Act”). On appeal, she argues that the State failed to demonstrate
No. 1-23-2315B
through clear and convincing evidence that: (1) no condition or combination of conditions could
protect the community from any real and present threat posed by her release, and (2) there were
no conditions of release that would reasonably ensure her appearance. For the following reasons,
we reverse and remand for new proceedings, at which the circuit court shall determine whether
Castillo should remain detained based on the specific, articulable facts of the case.
¶2 BACKGROUND
¶3 Castillo was arrested on April 15, 2023, and charged with one count each of home invasion
(720 ILCS 5/19-6(a)(2)) (West 2022)), battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3(a)(1) (West 2022)), and child
endangerment (720 ILCS 5/12C-5(a)(1) (West 2022)). The State amended their charges, replacing
the battery charge with criminal damage to property (720 ILCS 5/21-1(a)(1) (West 2022)). The
circuit court initially denied Castillo bail on April 16, 2023. Following enactment of the Act on
September 18, 2023, counsel for Castillo filed a petition to grant pretrial release on November 15,
2023. The State then filed a petition for a pretrial detention hearing on November 29, 2023. The
circuit court held a hearing on both petitions on December 6, 2023.
¶4 Counsel for Castillo proffered that she is a lifelong resident of Cook County who graduated
high school and received a nursing assistant certificate from Job Corps. Castillo has three children,
one with developmental delays, and all are currently in her mother’s care since she has been
detained. While in detainment, Castillo has participated in numerous programs to make positive
changes to herself, including group therapy, substance abuse treatment, and parenting classes.
Counsel noted that Castillo secured in-patient treatment at the Haymarket Treatment Center
(Haymarket), and upon release, Castillo would transfer to Haymarket to continue treatment.
Counsel suggested that Castillo be placed under electronic home monitoring (EHM) at Haymarket,
with no movement from that location until her bond is addressed or her treatment at Haymarket is
2
No. 1-23-2315B
complete. Should treatment go well at Haymarket, counsel suggested releasing Castillo to her
mother’s home. Counsel stated that Castillo understands that she is not to contact the victims of
the April 15, 2023, incident, and that she only seeks the opportunity to continue improving herself
while being able to spend more time with her children.
¶5 The State proffered that around 6:30 a.m. on April 15, 2023, Castillo, along with two male
co-defendants, went to the home of Herman Lopez to drop off their shared child. At the time,
Lopez was sleeping with his current girlfriend, Olga Gelacio, when they heard loud knocking at
the front door. When Lopez opened the door, Castillo began yelling at him. Lopez then closed the
door yet opened it later to get his child from her. Upon reopening the door, Castillo saw Gelacio,
ran into the home, and lunged at her. The other co-defendants then entered the home and attacked
the victims. Lopez chased the co-defendants out of the home with a knife, restrained Castillo, and
told Gelacio to call 911.
¶6 As Gelacio called 911, the co-defendants picked up bricks and threw them into the home’s
windows. The co-defendants then kicked down the front door and re-entered the home. Lopez
chased away the defendants, who fled in a green Buick. When officers stopped the Buick, the
victims identified the defendants as the attackers. Police then arrested the defendants. At the stop,
officers noticed Castillo’s son in the back seat.
¶7 Regarding Castillo’s background, the State proffered that while Castillo had no prior
convictions, she was arrested twice for domestic battery against Lopez. Counsel for Castillo noted
the State dropped both domestic battery charges. In addition, counsel for Castillo noted that she
had prior orders of protection against Lopez before those arrests. Counsel for Castillo also noted
that pretrial services gave her a score of one and one for new criminal activity and failure to appear,
respectively.
3
No. 1-23-2315B
¶8 The circuit court granted the State’s petition for pretrial detention, finding that the State
established via clear and convincing evidence that Castillo committed a forcible felony in home
invasion, that she presented a real and present danger to the victims, and that there were no
conditions or combination of conditions that would mitigate that danger or Castillo’s willful flight.
The court stated that “the current condition, which is detention, is necessary to ensure the
appearance of the defendant and the safety of the persons involved in the case, specifically [the
victims].” The court continued, “[the court finds that Castillo] poses a real and present threat to
the safety of [the victims] and no combination of conditions, including [EHM] at Haymarket and
ultimately to her mother’s address, will provide for their safety.”
¶9 In the order denying pretrial release, the judge stated that less restrictive conditions would
not avoid a real and present danger to the safety of any person or persons or the community because
(1) the victims initially closed the door on Castillo, but she barged in and escalated the event; (2)
Castillo has two prior domestic battery arrests upon Lopez, and that they share a child; and (3) on
the date of the incident, despite the presence of a minor, Castillo attacked the victims. Furthermore,
the judge stated that no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate Castillo’s willful flight
because she fled the location of attack and was apprehended by police.
¶ 10 On December 8, 2023, Castillo filed her notice of appeal, and checked a box stating that the
State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or
combination of conditions can mitigate the 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 defendant’s willful
flight. Castillo claimed that the State did not make any arguments that there are no conditions that
could mitigate the real and present threat and that counsel for Castillo presented an alternative in
EHM that would prohibit her from leaving Haymarket’s facility. In addition, Castillo checked a
4
No. 1-23-2315B
box stating that the circuit court erred in its determination that no condition or combination of
conditions would reasonably ensure her appearance for later hearings or prevent her from being
charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. Castillo claimed the court did not
consider whether EHM placement and release to Haymarket would assure her appearance and
prevent new charges. She also pointed to the one and one pretrial scores, along with her zero prior
criminal convictions and zero failures to appear at prior proceedings on her record.
¶ 11 JURISDICTION
¶ 12 Castillo appeals from the circuit court’s order of December 6, 2023. She filed this notice of
appeal on December 8, 2023, and thus the notice was timely, and this court has jurisdiction
pursuant to the Act. See 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(j) (West 2022); 725 ILCS 5/110-6.6 (West 2022); Ill.
S. Ct. R. 604(h) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023).
¶ 13 ANALYSIS
¶ 14 On appeal, Castillo first argues that the State failed to meet its burden to show that there
were no conditions or combination of conditions that would mitigate her real and present threat to
the safety of the victims. She next argues that the circuit court erred in determining that there were
no conditions that would ensure her appearance or prevent her from being charged with a
subsequent crime because it did not consider EHM placement at Haymarket, her pretrial scores,
and lack of a prior record.
¶ 15 Under the Act, all persons charged with an offense shall be eligible for pretrial release before
conviction. 725 ILCS 5/110-2(a) (West 2022). Pretrial release may be denied upon a verified
petition by the State and following a hearing. Id. § 6.1(a). At the hearing, the State bears the burden
of proving by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the defendant committed an offense listed in
the statute; (2) the defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person, persons,
5
No. 1-23-2315B
or the community, based on the specific, articulable facts of the case; and (3) no condition or
combination of conditions can mitigate that real and present threat or the defendant’s willful flight.
Id. § 6.1(e). If the circuit court determines that the defendant should be denied pretrial release, the
court is required to make a written finding summarizing the reasons for denying pretrial release.
Id. § 6.1(h)(1).
¶ 16 Appellate decisions conflict as to the precise standard of review to apply to pretrial release
orders of the circuit court. In People v Romero, 2024 IL App (1st) 2322023-U, ¶ 31-32, another
panel of this court details this disagreement, where some courts hold that review is fully subject to
review under the abuse of discretion standard; some courts hold that review is subject to the
“manifest weight of the evidence” standard; and others hold that review is “twofold,” where the
circuit court’s factual findings are reviewed under the “manifest weight of the evidence” standard,
and the ultimate determination for pretrial release is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See
People v Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13.
¶ 17 We find the “twofold” approach in Trottier is well reasoned. The circuit court’s factual
findings regarding whether the State presented clear and convincing evidence that mandatory
conditions of release would fail to protect any person or the community or the defendant has a high
likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution is reviewed under the manifest weight of the
evidence standard. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. A finding is against the manifest
weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or if the finding itself is
unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. People v. Krisik, 2018 IL App
(1st) 161265, ¶ 53 (citing People v. Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322, 332 (2008)).
¶ 18 The circuit court’s ultimate determination regarding pretrial release is reviewed under the
abuse of discretion standard. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. An abuse of discretion
6
No. 1-23-2315B
occurs where the circuit court’s decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or fanciful, or where no
reasonable person would have taken the position adopted by the circuit court. People v. Heineman,
2023 IL 127854, ¶ 59. In reviewing a circuit court’s ruling for abuse of discretion, we will not
substitute our judgment for that of the circuit court unless no reasonable person would take the
view adopted by the court. People v. Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253, ¶ 15.
¶ 19 The State first claims that Castillo’s argument that the State did not prove that no conditions
could mitigate the risk of her willful flight is forfeited. The State points to People v Clark, 2023
IL App (5th) 230878-U, where the Fifth District ruled that a defendant’s claim in his notice of
appeal was forfeited when he checked a box on the notice of appeal form to assert a claim that the
state failed to meet its burden, but did not provide any elaboration, reference to the record, or cite
any authority in support of his claim.
¶ 20 It is reasonable to conclude that by approving the pretrial release notice of appeal form, the
Illinois Supreme Court expects appellants to at least include some rudimentary facts, argument, or
support for the conclusory claim they have identified by checking a box. People v. Inman, 2023
IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 13. We find that Castillo did not forfeit her argument that the State did not
prove that no conditions could mitigate her willful flight. The State likens Castillo’s notice of
appeal to the one presented in Clark, but Castillo presents an explanation to support her claims
that the State did not present clear and convincing evidence. In Clark, the court noted that while
the defendant claimed that “the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing
evidence that the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant committed [reckless
discharge of a firearm],” he did not provide any further explanation to support his claim. Clark,
2023 IL App (5th) 230878-U, ¶ 6. Here, after Castillo checked the box on her notice of appeal
form claiming that the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence
7
No. 1-23-2315B
that no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate the 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
the defendant’s willful flight, she explained that pretrial release would only be to Haymarket and
that while she would be under EHM, she would be prohibited from leaving the facility. This
explanation addresses both how less restrictive conditions could possibly mitigate her threat to the
victims and prevent her willful flight from prosecution.
¶ 21 Turning to Castillo’s claims, she first argues that the State did not prove by clear and
convincing evidence that there were no condition or combination of conditions that would mitigate
the real and present threat to the victims’ safety, even though her counsel presented an alternative
in EHM at Haymarket. As such, denial of pretrial release was improper.
¶ 22 In response, the State argues that the record provides ample support for the circuit court’s
denial of pretrial release. The State asserts that their proffer included Castillo’s prior domestic
battery arrests that involved Lopez. Moreover, the circuit court considered and rejected Castillo’s
request for EHM at Haymarket after considering the nature and circumstances of the crime and
her prior arrests. The State also claims Castillo’s argument that the State did not argue no condition
or combination of conditions could mitigate her threat to the victims is unavailing, citing People
v. Perez, 2024 IL App (2d) 230416-U, ¶ 29.
¶ 23 Under the Act, the State must show by “clear and convincing evidence” that no condition
or combination of conditions can mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or
persons or the defendant’s willful flight. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(3) (West 2022). Clear and
convincing evidence is “that quantum of proof that leaves no reasonable doubt in the mind of the
fact finder about the truth of the proposition in question.” In re Tiffany W., 2012 IL App (1st)
102492-B, ¶ 12.
8
No. 1-23-2315B
¶ 24 In finding that no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the threat to the
victims, the circuit court considered that after Lopez reopened the door, Castillo escalated the
incident by running in and attacking Galacio, and that Castillo and Lopez’s child was in the car
during the incident. The court also noted Castillo’s prior domestic battery arrests upon Lopez.
¶ 25 We find that the circuit court’s finding that no mitigating conditions existed was against the
manifest weight of the evidence because the State’s evidence did not address whether EHM, or
any other less restrictive condition, could mitigate the threat to the safety of any person or persons
or the community or Castillo’s willful flight. The State’s proffer provided that Castillo committed
a forcible felony and presented a real and present threat to the victims, but no mention of whether
less restrictive conditions of release would mitigate her threat to the victims or her willful flight.
The State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that no condition could
mitigate the defendant’s threat or their willful flight under section 6.1(e)(3) of the Act.
¶ 26 People v Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, is illustrative on this point. There, another panel
of this court ruled that the circuit court’s finding that there were no conditions to mitigate the
defendant’s threat was against the manifest weight of the evidence. At the pretrial detention
hearing, the State made a factual proffer detailing the events of the incident. Id. ¶ 5. On appeal, the
court noted that the factual proffer from the State was insufficient to show that no conditions could
mitigate the threat posed by the defendant. Id. ¶ 18. In so finding, the Stock court stated, “If the
base allegations that make up the sine qua non of a violent offense were sufficient on their own to
establish [that no conditions could mitigate the threat posed] then the legislature would have
simply deemed those accused of violent offenses ineligible for release.” Id.
¶ 27 Here, Castillo does not contest that she was charged with a forcible felony in home
invasion, or that she poses a real and present danger to the victims. Instead, she argues that EHM
9
No. 1-23-2315B
at Haymarket, and, eventually, her mother’s home, is a less restrictive condition that could mitigate
that danger or her willful flight. It is the State’s burden to prove that there are no conditions that
could mitigate the danger to the victims or Castillo’s willful flight, a burden the State failed to
meet by only relying on the factual proffer and Castillo’s prior domestic battery arrests, which, as
Stock explained, is insufficient. Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753 ¶ 20 (the circuit court cannot
infer on behalf of the State that there is no conceivable condition or combination of conditions that
could mitigate the threat).
¶ 28 The State argues that under People v. Perez, 2024 IL App (2d) 230416-U, they can rely on
the police synopsis and defendant’s history to assert their claim. This argument fails because the
evidence presented must still meet their burden for all the elements under the statute. In Perez, the
State relied on the police synopsis that detailed the defendant stating that he wanted to kill the
victim and “Hispanics” as evidence pertaining to his dangerousness to the community. Perez, 2024
IL App (2d) 230416-U, ¶ 10. The circuit court, however, did not rely on the police synopsis alone
to determine that lesser conditions would not mitigate the defendant’s threat or his willful flight.
Id. ¶ 12. Instead, the court considered the defendant’s behavior during the pretrial hearing,
including his refusal to obey court orders, outbursts, and usage of slurs, to determine that because
of his inability or unwillingness to control himself in court or follow court orders, lesser conditions
would not assure safety or the defendant’s appearance in court. Id. Conversely, the Court here
relies on the State’s proffer, which do not speak to Castillo’s ability or willingness to control
herself or obey court orders. Without additional evidence to support the claim that lesser
conditions could not mitigate the threat to the victims or Castillo’s willful flight, the State has not
met their burden for all elements of the statute. As such, the circuit court’s factual findings are
against the manifest wight of the evidence.
10
No. 1-23-2315B
¶ 29 We now turn to the ultimate determination of pretrial release, which we review for abuse
of discretion. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. Under the Act, if the circuit court orders
detention, it must make a written finding summarizing the court’s reasons for concluding that the
defendant should be denied pretrial release, including why less restrictive conditions would not
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 prevent the defendant’s flight from prosecution. 725
ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West 2022). Failure of the circuit court to address these conditions falls
short of the “clear legislative directive” for courts to address less restrictive conditions of release.
People v Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶ 23. By failing to address the conditions of release,
in writing, a circuit court fails to “make a record adequate to allow meaningful review of its
exercise of discretion. Id. at ¶ 24.
¶ 30 In applying section 6.1 of the Act, several courts have contemplated what constitutes a
sufficient written finding when the circuit court orders pretrial detention. In People v. Andino-
Acosta, 2024 IL App (2d) 230463, ¶ 19, the Second District held that an explicit and individualized
oral ruling may satisfy the statute. In Andino-Acosta, the court considered Justice Boie’s dissent
in People v. Odehnal, 2024 IL App (5th) 230877-U, ¶ 18, where in denying pretrial release, the
circuit court made detailed, fact-specific findings as to why pretrial release was denied. In his
dissent, Justice Boie referred to In re Madison H., 215 Ill. 2d 364 (2002), where the Illinois
Supreme Court considered a similar statute that required the circuit court to make a written finding
for determining whether a parent is unfit to raise a child. The supreme court found that explicit
oral findings stated during a hearing are sufficient for written findings after they are transcribed
because they then provide an opportunity for review of their validity on appeal. Id. at ¶21. The
11
No. 1-23-2315B
Andino-Acosta court ruled to assess the sufficiency of a trial court’s findings under section 6.1 of
the Act, the circuit court’s written findings must be read in conjunction with its oral statements.
¶ 31 While we agree with the court in Andino-Acosta, a circuit court must still provide an
explanation of its consideration of less restrictive conditions in its verbal ruling as transcribed or
in its written order. In People v Peralta, 2023 IL App (1st) 231897-U, ¶ 13, a different panel of
this court reviewed a pretrial detention order where the circuit court stated that less restrictive
conditions would not mitigate the defendant’s threat to the community or his willful flight because
the defendant “fired multiple shots on a city street . . . [due] to an altercation at a liquor store. His
[pretrial services] score corresponds with a 3.” The court found that the explanation fell short of
the requirements of section 6.1 because the circuit court did not indicate that it considered or
indicated why less restrictive conditions would not mitigate the threat. Id. The court remanded the
matter to the circuit court and directed it to consider the possibility of less restrictive conditions
and explain why or why not such alternatives would be effective. Id.¶ 32 We find this matter similar to Peralta because the circuit court abused its discretion by not
explaining why less restrictive conditions would not mitigate Castillo’s threat to the victims or her
willful flight in oral statements or written order. At the pretrial release hearing, the judge stated
that no combination of conditions, including EHM at Haymarket and ultimately Castillo’s
mother’s address, would provide for the safety of the victims. The judge does not provide further
explanation in the transcript of the hearing as to why no conditions would provide for the victims’
safety. In the written order, the judge found that less restrictive conditions would not avoid the real
and present danger because “the victims initially closed the door on [Castillo], but [she] barged in
and escalated the event. [Castillo] has two prior [domestic battery] arrests upon [Lopez], [and]
they share a child. On this date despite the presence of [a] minor, [Castillo] attacked [the victims].”
12
No. 1-23-2315B
The court continued that less restrictive conditions would not prevent Castillo’s willful flight
because “[she] fled [the] location of attack and was apprehended by police.”
¶ 33 While these factors stated in the order are certainly reasons why defendant is being charged
and poses a risk of harm to a person or community, they do not indicate why lesser restrictions
would not mitigate the danger or Castillo’s willful flight. See People v. Turner, 2024 IL App (1st)
02082-U, ¶ 21. Castillo has zero criminal convictions, and the charges related to her prior domestic
battery arrests were dropped. Pretrial services gave Castillo scores of one for new criminal activity
and one for failure to appear. Castillo has participated in a series of treatment programs while
detained to improve herself, including group therapy, substance abuse treatment, and parenting
classes. Neither the oral statements from the transcript of the hearing or the written detention order
explain why less restrictive conditions would not mitigate Castillo’s threat to the victims or her
willful flight, as required under the Act. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶ 23.
¶ 34 In assessing the oral statements and written order, the circuit court did not explain its
reasons why less restrictive conditions to Castillo’s pretrial release would not mitigate the real and
present threat to the victims or her willful flight. As such, we conclude that its denial of pretrial
release was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the circuit court for
compliance with the Act, specifically to consider alternatives to detention, including “zero
tolerance” EHM at Haymarket and eventually Castillo’s mother’s home, and explain why or why
not these alternatives would mitigate her threat to the victims or her willful flight. 1
1 We do not consider Castillo’s other argument that that the circuit court erred in
determining that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably ensure her
appearance for later hearings or prevent being charged with a subsequent felony. Under the Act,
when a defendant has previously been granted pretrial release, it may be revoked if they are
charged with a felony or Class A misdemeanor and following a hearing. 725 ILCS 5/110-6(a)
(West 2022) At the hearing, the State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence
13
No. 1-23-2315B
¶ 35 CONCLUSION
¶ 36 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the circuit court’s pretrial detention order and remand
for further proceedings consistent with this order.
¶ 37 Reversed and remanded with directions.
that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably ensure the defendant’s
appearance in future hearings or prevent them from being charged with a subsequent felony or
Class A misdemeanor. Id. Here, Castillo’s hearing in December was to determine pretrial release
for the first time under the Act. Because the court hasn’t previously granted pretrial release, section
110-6(a) does not apply.
14
No. 1-23-2315B
People v. Castillo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232315Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 23-CR-05346;
the Hon. Margaret M. Ogarek, Judge, presiding.
Attorneys Sharone R. Mitchell, Jr. Public Defender of Cook County, of
for Chicago (Ross K. Holberg, Assistant Public Defender), for
Appellant: appellant.
Attorneys Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Mariela
for Guzman, Assistant State’s Attorney), for the People.
Appellee:
15