2024 IL App (1st) 241284
Ill. App. Ct.2024Background
- Anthony Milner was charged with multiple violent felonies, including murder, attempted murder, aggravated battery, and weapons charges, stemming from four separate shootings in 2018.
- Milner was held in pretrial custody because he could not post bond prior to Illinois’ 2023 elimination of cash bail (Pretrial Fairness Act).
- After the Act’s effective date, Milner, representing himself, moved for pretrial release; the State responded by petitioning for his continued pretrial detention under the amended law.
- Milner argued repeatedly that the State’s pretrial detention petitions were untimely because they were not filed at his initial court appearance, as purportedly required by statutory timing provisions.
- The trial court denied Milner’s requests for release and his subsequent motions for reconsideration, finding the State’s petitions timely under the amended statutory framework.
- On appeal, Milner continued to argue timeliness while the State contended either no jurisdiction existed to review the claim or, in the alternative, that its petitions were timely on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Milner’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State’s pretrial detention petitions were untimely under section 110-6.1(c) | The State had to file a pretrial detention petition at his first appearance; failure to do so barred later petitions | The timing limits did not apply to defendants already in custody when the Pretrial Fairness Act took effect, esp. when the defendant initiates reconsideration | The time limits did not apply; the State’s petitions were not untimely because Milner initiated proceedings under the new law |
| Jurisdiction to review the timeliness claim given amended Rule 604(h) | Filing a notice of appeal after Rule 604(h) was amended made the appeal timely retroactively | The original order’s 14-day appeal deadline foreclosed review of timeliness; only later orders could be reviewed | The court had jurisdiction since the trial court reaffirmed its timeliness ruling on Milner’s motions for release under the new law |
| Applicability of section 110-6.1 to pre-Act, still-detained defendants | Section 110-6.1 did not apply to individuals already detained on pre-Act bond conditions | Section 110-7.5 allowed petition for detention at hearing on release after the Act; Milner’s motion opened the door | Section 110-7.5(b) and 110-5(e) entitled such defendants to a hearing, and the State could seek detention at that hearing |
| Mechanism for seeking pretrial detention at rehearing | The State could only file a “second/subsequent” petition, and only if new facts appeared | The State was permitted to file a verified petition at the reopened hearing regardless of new facts | A verified petition for detention is the proper vehicle at a hearing on release; no time bar applied |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Whitmore, 2023 IL App (1st) 231807 (timing requirements for pretrial detention petitions do not bar State from petitioning when defendant seeks relief under new law)
- People v. McDonald, 2024 IL App (1st) 232414 (State’s petition timely when filed in response to defendant’s post-Act motion for release)
- People v. Brown, 2023 IL App (1st) 231890 (takes narrower view, applying strict timing to State’s petitions — court here declined to follow)
- People v. Triplett, 2024 IL App (2d) 230388 (timeliness of State’s petition is reviewable on appeal when reaffirmed in subsequent orders)