2023 IL App (4th) 230817
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background
- Defendant Antwon M. Hayes was charged March 4, 2022 with first‑degree murder with a firearm enhancement carrying a 45‑year mandatory minimum; bail set at $2,000,000 and not posted.
- On September 11, 2023 Hayes filed a motion seeking pretrial release under 725 ILCS 5/110‑2(a) and 110‑6.1(e).
- The State filed a petition (Sept. 14, 2023) to deny pretrial release under 110‑6.1(a)(1); after Rowe v. Raoul, the amended statutes became effective Sept. 18, 2023.
- At the Sept. 19, 2023 detention hearing the State amended its petition to add 110‑6.1(a)(8) (high likelihood of willful flight) and presented eyewitness/security‑camera facts describing an execution‑style shooting that occurred while school was in session.
- Defense emphasized no prior criminal record and provocation by the victim; the circuit court ordered detention on both danger and flight grounds and Hayes timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State was authorized to file a petition to deny pretrial release for a defendant who remained in custody after being ordered released on condition of depositing security | State: defendant forfeited the argument by not raising it in circuit court; petition was properly filed after statutes took effect | Hayes: section 110‑6.1(c) barred the State from filing such a petition in these circumstances | Forfeiture — defendant failed to object in the circuit court, so the claim is forfeited on appeal |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to strike the State’s petition | State: no prejudice — Hayes had filed his own pretrial‑release motion, so striking the State’s petition would not have changed the proceeding | Hayes: counsel should have moved to strike the petition | Denied — applying Strickland, defendant cannot show prejudice because the court would have addressed his own release motion |
| Whether the court abused its discretion in ordering detention under 110‑6.1(a)(1) (danger) and (a)(8) (willful flight) | State: violent, execution‑style facts, school in session, eyewitness/video evidence, and a long mandatory minimum create danger and flight risk | Hayes: no criminal record, victim provoked/threatened him; factual disputes exist and State bears burden | Affirmed — facts supported a reasonable finding of community danger and high flight risk; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test)
- People v. Evans, 186 Ill. 2d 83 (1999) (applies Strickland standard in Illinois)
- People v. Jackson, 2022 IL 127256 (2022) (preservation/forfeiture rule requiring timely objection)
- Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248 (2023) (addressed effective date/application of legislative amendments relied upon by the State)