2024 IL App (1st) 232479
Ill. App. Ct.2024Background
- Damarco Watkins-Romaine was charged with multiple counts, including attempted first-degree murder, stemming from a 2022 shooting incident.
- At an initial bond hearing on September 1, 2023, the court denied the State's request for "no bail" and instead set a $350,000 bond with electronic monitoring; Watkins-Romaine was never released.
- The Pretrial Fairness Act (effective January 1, 2023) abolished monetary bail in Illinois, affecting pretrial release and detention procedures.
- After the new law became effective, Watkins-Romaine petitioned for release, while the State filed a petition for pretrial detention.
- The trial court granted the State’s detention petition, finding sufficient proof of the offenses but did not analyze whether less restrictive conditions could ensure safety and compliance.
- On appeal, Watkins-Romaine argued the State’s detention petition was untimely under the amended law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State’s petition for pretrial detention was timely under amended Article 110 | The State argued the petition was proper when defendant, previously ordered released but still in custody, sought release after the amendment. | Watkins-Romaine argued the State missed the statutory time limits for seeking detention, as their petition was not at first appearance or within 21 days of arrest/release. | The State’s petition was untimely; the statute only permits such petitions at first appearance or within 21 days of arrest/release. |
| Whether the amended bail statute allows reconsideration of detention for defendants remaining in custody post-reform | The State claimed it could seek detention any time conditions of pretrial release were at issue. | Watkins-Romaine asserted his ongoing custody did not permit the State a new attempt at detention under the new law. | Statute does not allow the State another chance at detention when a defendant was previously ordered released but remained in custody due to inability to post bond. |
| If a hearing was required to determine why Watkins-Romaine remained in custody | State sought to convert the petition for release into a renewed opportunity to detain. | Defendant requested a hearing under section 110-7.5(b) to determine continued custody in lieu of monetary bond. | Defendant is entitled to a hearing solely to determine the reason for continued detention, not a renewed petition for detention. |
| Whether procedural defects required reversal | State did not focus on procedural default or plain error. | Defendant cited plain error affecting his fundamental right to liberty. | Procedural defects justified reversal; trial court must follow statute’s process for post-reform cases. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Brown, 2023 IL App (1st) 231890 (untimely State petition for pretrial detention when not filed at first appearance or within the statutory period; reversal required)
- People v. Whitmore, 2023 IL App (1st) 231807 (interpreted statute to allow petition after Act’s effective date, but appellate court here rejects this reading)
- People v. Jones, 2023 IL App (4th) 230837 (allowed State to petition upon modification request, but this reasoning also rejected here)
- People v. Taylor, 2023 IL 128316 (statutory interpretation principles)