2023 IL App (5th) 230716
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background
- William Council was charged Aug 15, 2023 with domestic battery, unlawful restraint, aggravated assault, and aggravated animal cruelty; he was already on pretrial release in a separate robbery case.
- On Aug 16 the circuit court set bond at $100,000 (10% deposit) and ordered a mental‑health evaluation; a fitness exam was ordered Aug 21 and completed Aug 29.
- The State filed a verified petition to deny pretrial release under the SAFE‑T Act (section 110‑6.1) on Sept 14, 2023, four days before the Act’s effective date (Sept 18, 2023).
- A written fitness report was filed Sept 18 finding Council unfit but likely to become fit within a year with DHS treatment; the court held a hearing Sept 19 and entered a detention order the same day.
- The court later entered an order Sept 21 committing Council to DHS for treatment as unfit; Council timely appealed the Sept 19 detention order.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Council's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the State's petition to detain under section 110‑6.1 | Petition was properly filed and authorized under the new pretrial scheme | Petition was untimely because Council remained in custody after bond was set and no release occurred; filing deadline in 110‑6.1(c)(1) applies | Petition was untimely; detention order vacated |
| Remedy/options for defendants who remained jailed after being ordered released with security | Detention under 110‑6.1 is appropriate | Such defendants fall under 110‑7.5(b) and are entitled either to a hearing under 110‑5(e) or to remain in custody until previously ordered security can be posted | Court follows People v. Rios: defendant may seek a 110‑5(e) hearing or wait to post original security |
| Sufficiency of proof of dangerousness and ineffective assistance of counsel | Evidence supported detention by clear and convincing proof; counsel was adequate | Insufficient proof of dangerousness; counsel ineffective for failing to move to strike the petition | Court did not reach these merits because the petition was untimely; remaining issues were not decided |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rios, 2023 IL App (5th) 230724 (5th Dist.) (held petition under section 110‑6.1 untimely where defendant remained detained after bond was set; explained options under 110‑7.5(b) and 110‑5(e))
- Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248 (Ill. 2023) (confirmed SAFE‑T Act effective date and related procedural effect)