People v. Vingara, 242 N.E.3d 969

Joseph Vingara was arrested July 14, 2023 and charged with multiple felonies and misdemeanors; bond (including depositing monetary security) and other release conditions were set before the SAFE‑T Act took effect.
Vingara could not post bond and remained in custody.
The SAFE‑T Act (as applied via amendments to 725 ILCS 5/art. 110) became effective September 18, 2023; the State filed a petition under section 110‑6.1 that same day seeking denial of pretrial release.
On September 19, 2023 the trial court granted the State’s petition, finding by clear and convincing evidence that Vingara committed a qualifying offense, posed a real and present threat, and that conditions could not mitigate the danger.
On appeal the Fifth District held the State’s petition was untimely as applied to defendants who were arrested and had pretrial conditions (including depositing security) set before the Act’s effective date; the court vacated the detention order and remanded.
The court explained defendants in Vingara’s situation fall under 725 ILCS 5/110‑7.5(b) and may either (1) stand on previously ordered release terms (and post the prior security when available) or (2) move for a hearing under section 110‑5(e) to reopen conditions of release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State could file a verified petition under 110‑6.1 after defendant was arrested and had bond/conditions set before the Act’s effective date	The Act and related Code provisions (e.g., §110‑2(e), §110‑6(i)) authorize the State to file such petitions after the Act’s effective date	Section 110‑6.1(c)(1)’s timing limits mean the State could not timely file because Vingara was arrested and had bond set before the Act took effect	The petition was untimely for defendants in Vingara’s category; §110‑6 did not apply; the detention order was vacated and the case remanded
Whether the trial court’s factual finding (clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness / qualifying offense) was supported	The State proffered evidence of a qualifying offense, threat to community, weapons access, and violent history	Vingara argued the State failed to meet the clear and convincing burden	Court did not reach the merits because the timeliness/procedural defect was dispositive
Whether forfeiture was excused under plain‑error doctrine or counsel’s failure to object was ineffective assistance	State maintained its petition and the court’s procedures were proper	Vingara invoked second‑prong plain error and alternatively ineffective assistance of counsel	Court found the untimely filing was plain error affecting substantial rights and remanded; it did not resolve ineffective‑assistance claim

Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248 (Statewide effective date of SAFE‑T Act addressed)
People v. Perruquet, 68 Ill.2d 149 (1977) (abuse of discretion standard for pretrial release decisions)
In re C.N., 196 Ill.2d 181 (2001) (clear and convincing burden standard explained)
People v. Deleon, 227 Ill.2d 322 (2008) (manifest‑weight review and deference to trial court findings)
People v. Horrell, 235 Ill.2d 235 (2009) (defendant may elect to proceed under older law when law changes)
People v. Herron, 215 Ill.2d 167 (2005) (plain‑error doctrine explained)
Jackson v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 2012 IL 111928 (statutory construction: give effect to legislative intent)
People v. Taylor, 2023 IL 128316 (de novo review for statutory interpretation)