People v. Forthenberry
230 N.E.3d 832
Ill. App. Ct.2024Background
- Rickey D. Forthenberry was charged with several felonies, including aggravated discharge of a firearm, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon.
- Initial bond was set prior to the effective date of Illinois’ SAFE-T Act, and Forthenberry remained in pretrial detention without posting bond.
- After the Act's effective date, Forthenberry moved to reconsider his pretrial release conditions, seeking release without monetary bond.
- The State responded with a petition to deny pretrial release, arguing Forthenberry posed a real and present danger to the community based on his conduct and criminal history.
- The trial court held a hearing, considered arguments regarding the nature of the charges and potential suppression of evidence, and ultimately ordered Forthenberry detained.
- Forthenberry appealed, claiming procedural error, improper consideration of potentially suppressible evidence, and that less restrictive conditions could have sufficed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of State’s petition to deny release | State may file a responsive petition when defendant seeks to modify release conditions. | State’s petition was untimely because defendant was already detained, citing Rios. | State’s petition was timely and properly considered. |
| Use of potentially suppressible evidence | Sufficient evidence exists; trial court may consider weight given possible suppression. | Evidence may be suppressed due to unlawful search/seizure; trial court ignored this factor. | Trial court properly considered suppression potential as weighing against evidence, not as dispositive. |
| Whether no conditions could mitigate threat | Forthenberry’s actions, history, and returning to scene with a firearm show ongoing danger. | Self-defense argument; claims only a danger to people attacking him—conditions could mitigate any risk. | Detention order proper; no conditions could ensure safety. |
| Incorporation by reference to notice of appeal | No response filed. | Attempted to rest alternative arguments by referencing the notice of appeal rather than elaborating arguments. | Incorporation by reference is insufficient—those claims are forfeited. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322 (Ill. 2008) (standard for manifest weight of the evidence)
- People v. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023) (standard of review for pretrial release determinations)
- People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023) (requirements for appeal memoranda under Rule 604(h))
- People v. Gray, 2023 IL App (3d) 230435 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023) (state’s ability to file responsive pleadings on pretrial conditions)