People v. Perez, 2024 IL App (4th) 230967

Mark Anthony Perez was charged with two counts of unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle, both Class 2 felonies, in Rock Island County, Illinois.
The State filed a verified petition to deny Perez pretrial release, arguing he posed a high likelihood of willful flight under section 110-6.1 of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure, referencing incidents related to stolen vehicles and a single failure to appear in court.
At the detention hearing, defense argued the State failed to prove intentional conduct meant to avoid prosecution and emphasized that isolated failures to appear should not count as evidence of willful flight under the statutory standard.
The circuit court denied pretrial release, citing Perez’s current probation for similar offenses, his single failure to appear, and refusal to participate in a pretrial bond interview, but did not articulate how these circumstances met the statutory definition of willful flight.
Perez appealed, contending the State did not meet its burden and the trial court erred in its reasoning and application of the law.
The appellate court reviewed the case for abuse of discretion, focusing on the statutory definition and proper application of willful flight.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Perez met the statutory criteria for denial of pretrial release due to risk of willful flight	Past actions and one missed court date show high flight risk; court may consider broad factors for detention.	State has not shown intentional acts to avoid prosecution; only a single nonappearance, which statute says is not enough.	Court abused discretion; record didn’t establish intentional conduct to avoid prosecution.
Whether consideration of a single missed appearance justifies detention	Isolated nonappearance plus other factors (probation, refusal to interview) indicate risk.	Statute expressly prohibits using single nonappearance as evidence.	Isolated nonappearance cannot be considered for willful flight.
Whether circuit court properly articulated its findings and applied the statute	Circuit court’s order is sufficient to justify detention.	Circuit court did not adequately explain why Perez’s conduct met willful flight standard.	Circuit court failed to sufficiently articulate basis for willful flight finding.
Whether less restrictive conditions could mitigate flight risk	No set of conditions would assure appearance given Perez’s history.	State failed to show no conditions could ensure compliance.	Circuit court conflated factors; did not make proper findings as required.

People v. Ortega, 209 Ill. 2d 354 (Ill. 2004) (an abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to apply proper criteria when weighing facts)