2023 IL App (5th) 230849
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background
- Defendant Dustin Cline was stopped on August 25, 2023, and charged with aggravated battery to a police officer after spitting on an officer; the new charge was filed in Christian County as 2023‑CF‑140.
- The State initially filed a verified petition to revoke pretrial release on September 7, 2023; Cline moved to strike as the SAFE‑T Act amendments were not yet effective for his situation under Rowe v. Raoul.
- The circuit court struck the September 18 petition to revoke and later struck a subsequent verified petition to revoke filed September 21 as untimely; the court concluded section 110‑6 required the defendant to have been released under that section and he had not been.
- The State filed a petition to deny pretrial release under section 110‑6.1 (filed Sept. 21; amended Sept. 22); the defendant moved to strike the amended petition and the court granted the motion, then removed the cash‑bail condition and ordered release.
- The State filed a notice of appeal (Rule 604(h) form) and sought reversal of the trial court’s order striking the petition to deny pretrial release; the appellate court analyzed whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to hear the State’s appeal from the trial court’s order striking the State’s petition to deny pretrial release | The State treated the order as appealable under Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h) and sought reversal of the trial court’s striking of its detention petition | The order granting the motion to strike the State’s petition is not one of the discrete interlocutory orders the State may appeal under Rule 604(a) or 604(h) | No jurisdiction; appeal dismissed |
| Whether trailer‑bill §110‑7.5 and the SAFE‑T Act permit the State to file a detention petition after the defendant already had a first appearance | The State argued §110‑7.5 allows retroactive/delayed filing and does not limit its ability to file under §110‑6.1 even if defendant already appeared | The petition is untimely because §110‑6.1 requires detention petitions at first appearance when the defendant is detained; defendant already had a first appearance | Court concluded (alternatively) that its prior decision in Rios would apply and support striking the petition |
| Whether the State’s notice of appeal adequately identified the appealed order among multiple docket entries on Sept. 22 | The State filed the Rule 604(h) form and included the record sheet; its memorandum clarified it sought reversal of the order striking the petition | The notice and record did not clearly identify which order was appealed among several entered that day | Appellate court construed the memorandum as limiting the appeal to the order striking the petition but still found no jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248 (Illinois Supreme Court) (addressing the SAFE‑T Act effective date and stay lifting)
- People v. Smith, 228 Ill. 2d 95 (supreme court rule construction and appellate jurisdiction are subject to independent review)
- Burtell v. First Charter Service Corp., 76 Ill. 2d 427 (appellate briefs/memoranda specify points to be relied upon for reversal)
- City of Evanston v. Paden, 221 Ill. App. 3d 1003 (only the supreme court may expand the State’s right to appeal nonfinal criminal orders)
- Longstreet v. Cottrell, Inc., 374 Ill. App. 3d 549 (rules of the supreme court are interpreted like statutes; plain meaning controls)