THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VERONICA CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 1-23-2315B
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
February 7, 2024
2024 IL App (1st) 232315
JUSTICE C.A. WALKER delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Oden Johnson and Justice Hyman concurred in the judgment.
SIXTH DIVISION
¶ 1 Defendant Veronica Castillo appeals the circuit court’s order continuing her pretrial detention pursuant to article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, as amended by
¶ 2 BACKGROUND
¶ 3 Castillo was arrested on April 15, 2023, and charged with one count each of home invasion (
¶ 4 Counsel for Castillo proffered that she is a lifelong resident of Cook County who graduated high school and received a nursing assistant certificate from Job Corps. Castillo has three children, one with developmental delays, and all are currently in her mother’s care since she has been detained. While in detainment, Castillo has participated in numerous programs to make positive changes to herself, including group therapy, substance abuse treatment, and parenting classes. Counsel noted that Castillo secured in-patient treatment at the Haymarket Treatment Center (Haymarket), and upon release, Castillo would transfer to Haymarket to continue treatment. Counsel suggested that Castillo be placed under electronic home monitoring (EHM) at Haymarket, with no movement from that location until her bond is addressed or her treatment at Haymarket is
¶ 5 The State proffered that around 6:30 a.m. on April 15, 2023, Castillo, along with two male co-defendants, went to the home of Herman Lopez to drop off their shared child. At the time, Lopez was sleeping with his current girlfriend, Olga Gelacio, when they heard loud knocking at the front door. When Lopez opened the door, Castillo began yelling at him. Lopez then closed the door yet opened it later to get his child from her. Upon reopening the door, Castillo saw Gelacio, ran into the home, and lunged at her. The other co-defendants then entered the home and attacked the victims. Lopez chased the co-defendants out of the home with a knife, restrained Castillo, and told Gelacio to call 911.
¶ 6 As Gelacio called 911, the co-defendants picked up bricks and threw them into the home’s windows. The co-defendants then kicked down the front door and re-entered the home. Lopez chased away the defendants, who fled in a green Buick. When officers stopped the Buick, the victims identified the defendants as the attackers. Police then arrested the defendants. At the stop, officers noticed Castillo’s son in the back seat.
¶ 7 Regarding Castillo’s background, the State proffered that while Castillo had no prior convictions, she was arrested twice for domestic battery against Lopez. Counsel for Castillo noted the State dropped both domestic battery charges. In addition, counsel for Castillo noted that she had prior orders of protection against Lopez before those arrests. Counsel for Castillo also noted that pretrial services gave her a score of one and one for new criminal activity and failure to appear, respectively.
¶ 8 The circuit court granted the State’s petition for pretrial detention, finding that the State established via clear and convincing evidence that Castillo committed a forcible felony in home invasion, that she presented a real and present danger to the victims, and that there were no conditions or combination of conditions that would mitigate that danger or Castillo’s willful flight. The court stated that “the current condition, which is detention, is necessary to ensure the appearance of the defendant and the safety of the persons involved in the case, specifically [the victims].” The court continued, “[the court finds that Castillo] poses a real and present threat to the safety of [the victims] and no combination of conditions, including [EHM] at Haymarket and ultimately to her mother’s address, will provide for their safety.”
¶ 9 In the order denying pretrial release, the judge stated that less restrictive conditions would not avoid a real and present danger to the safety of any person or persons or the community because (1) the victims initially closed the door on Castillo, but she barged in and escalated the event; (2) Castillo has two prior domestic battery arrests upon Lopez, and that they share a child; and (3) on the date of the incident, despite the presence of a minor, Castillo attacked the victims. Furthermore, the judge stated that no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate Castillo’s willful flight because she fled the location of attack and was apprehended by police.
¶ 10 On December 8, 2023, Castillo filed her notice of appeal, and checked a box stating that the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, based on the specific, articulable facts of the case, or defendant’s willful flight. Castillo claimed that the State did not make any arguments that there are no conditions that could mitigate the real and present threat and that counsel for Castillo presented an alternative in EHM that would prohibit her from leaving Haymarket’s facility. In addition, Castillo checked a
¶ 11 JURISDICTION
¶ 12 Castillo appeals from the circuit court’s order of December 6, 2023. She filed this notice of appeal on December 8, 2023, and thus the notice was timely, and this court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Act. See
¶ 13 ANALYSIS
¶ 14 On appeal, Castillo first argues that the State failed to meet its burden to show that there were no conditions or combination of conditions that would mitigate her real and present threat to the safety of the victims. She next argues that the circuit court erred in determining that there were no conditions that would ensure her appearance or prevent her from being charged with a subsequent crime because it did not consider EHM placement at Haymarket, her pretrial scores, and lack of a prior record.
¶ 15 Under the Act, all persons charged with an offense shall be eligible for pretrial release before conviction.
¶ 16 Appellate decisions conflict as to the precise standard of review to apply to pretrial release orders of the circuit court. In People v. Romero, 2024 IL App (1st) 2322023-U, ¶ 31-32, another panel of this court details this disagreement, where some courts hold that review is fully subject to review under the abuse of discretion standard; some courts hold that review is subject to the “manifest weight of the evidence” standard; and others hold that review is “twofold,” where the circuit court’s factual findings are reviewed under the “manifest weight of the evidence” standard, and the ultimate determination for pretrial release is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See People v. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13.
¶ 17 We find the “twofold” approach in Trottier is well reasoned. The circuit court’s factual findings regarding whether the State presented clear and convincing evidence that mandatory conditions of release would fail to protect any person or the community or the defendant has a high likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution is reviewed under the manifest weight of the evidence standard. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or if the finding itself is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. People v. Krisik, 2018 IL App (1st) 161265, ¶ 53 (citing People v. Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322, 332 (2008)).
¶ 18 The circuit court’s ultimate determination regarding pretrial release is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. An abuse of discretion
¶ 19 The State first claims that Castillo’s argument that the State did not prove that no conditions could mitigate the risk of her willful flight is forfeited. The State points to People v. Clark, 2023 IL App (5th) 230878-U, where the Fifth District ruled that a defendant’s claim in his notice of appeal was forfeited when he checked a box on the notice of appeal form to assert a claim that the state failed to meet its burden, but did not provide any elaboration, reference to the record, or cite any authority in support of his claim.
¶ 20 It is reasonable to conclude that by approving the pretrial release notice of appeal form, the Illinois Supreme Court expects appellants to at least include some rudimentary facts, argument, or support for the conclusory claim they have identified by checking a box. People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 13. We find that Castillo did not forfeit her argument that the State did not prove that no conditions could mitigate her willful flight. The State likens Castillo’s notice of appeal to the one presented in Clark, but Castillo presents an explanation to support her claims that the State did not present clear and convincing evidence. In Clark, the court noted that while the defendant claimed that “the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant committed [reckless discharge of a firearm],” he did not provide any further explanation to support his claim. Clark, 2023 IL App (5th) 230878-U, ¶ 6. Here, after Castillo checked the box on her notice of appeal form claiming that the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence
¶ 21 Turning to Castillo’s claims, she first argues that the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that there were no condition or combination of conditions that would mitigate the real and present threat to the victims’ safety, even though her counsel presented an alternative in EHM at Haymarket. As such, denial of pretrial release was improper.
¶ 22 In response, the State argues that the record provides ample support for the circuit court’s denial of pretrial release. The State asserts that their proffer included Castillo’s prior domestic battery arrests that involved Lopez. Moreover, the circuit court considered and rejected Castillo’s request for EHM at Haymarket after considering the nature and circumstances of the crime and her prior arrests. The State also claims Castillo’s argument that the State did not argue no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate her threat to the victims is unavailing, citing People v. Perez, 2024 IL App (2d) 230416-U, ¶ 29.
¶ 23 Under the Act, the State must show by “clear and convincing evidence” that no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the defendant’s willful flight.
¶ 24 In finding that no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the threat to the victims, the circuit court considered that after Lopez reopened the door, Castillo escalated the incident by running in and attacking Galacio, and that Castillo and Lopez’s child was in the car during the incident. The court also noted Castillo’s prior domestic battery arrests upon Lopez.
¶ 25 We find that the circuit court’s finding that no mitigating conditions existed was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the State’s evidence did not address whether EHM, or any other less restrictive condition, could mitigate the threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community or Castillo’s willful flight. The State’s proffer provided that Castillo committed a forcible felony and presented a real and present threat to the victims, but no mention of whether less restrictive conditions of release would mitigate her threat to the victims or her willful flight. The State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that no condition could mitigate the defendant’s threat or their willful flight under section 6.1(e)(3) of the Act.
¶ 26 People v. Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, is illustrative on this point. There, another panel of this court ruled that the circuit court’s finding that there were no conditions to mitigate the defendant’s threat was against the manifest weight of the evidence. At the pretrial detention hearing, the State made a factual proffer detailing the events of the incident. Id. ¶ 5. On appeal, the court noted that the factual proffer from the State was insufficient to show that no conditions could mitigate the threat posed by the defendant. Id. ¶ 18. In so finding, the Stock court stated, “If the base allegations that make up the sine qua non of a violent offense were sufficient on their own to establish [that no conditions could mitigate the threat posed] then the legislature would have simply deemed those accused of violent offenses ineligible for release.” Id.
¶ 27 Here, Castillo does not contest that she was charged with a forcible felony in home invasion, or that she poses a real and present danger to the victims. Instead, she argues that EHM
¶ 28 The State argues that under People v. Perez, 2024 IL App (2d) 230416-U, they can rely on the police synopsis and defendant’s history to assert their claim. This argument fails because the evidence presented must still meet their burden for all the elements under the statute. In Perez, the State relied on the police synopsis that detailed the defendant stating that he wanted to kill the victim and “Hispanics” as evidence pertaining to his dangerousness to the community. Perez, 2024 IL App (2d) 230416-U, ¶ 10. The circuit court, however, did not rely on the police synopsis alone to determine that lesser conditions would not mitigate the defendant’s threat or his willful flight. Id. ¶ 12. Instead, the court considered the defendant’s behavior during the pretrial hearing, including his refusal to obey court orders, outbursts, and usage of slurs, to determine that because of his inability or unwillingness to control himself in court or follow court orders, lesser conditions would not assure safety or the defendant’s appearance in court. Id. Conversely, the Court here relies on the State’s proffer, which do not speak to Castillo’s ability or willingness to control herself or obey court orders. Without additional evidence to support the claim that lesser conditions could not mitigate the threat to the victims or Castillo’s willful flight, the State has not met their burden for all elements of the statute. As such, the circuit court’s factual findings are against the manifest wight of the evidence.
¶ 29 We now turn to the ultimate determination of pretrial release, which we review for abuse of discretion. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. Under the Act, if the circuit court orders detention, it must make a written finding summarizing the court’s reasons for concluding that the defendant should be denied pretrial release, including why less restrictive conditions would not avoid a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, based on the specific, articulable facts of the case, or prevent the defendant’s flight from prosecution.
¶ 30 In applying section 6.1 of the Act, several courts have contemplated what constitutes a sufficient written finding when the circuit court orders pretrial detention. In People v. Andino-Acosta, 2024 IL App (2d) 230463, ¶ 19, the Second District held that an explicit and individualized oral ruling may satisfy the statute. In Andino-Acosta, the court considered Justice Boie’s dissent in People v. Odehnal, 2024 IL App (5th) 230877-U, ¶ 18, where in denying pretrial release, the circuit court made detailed, fact-specific findings as to why pretrial release was denied. In his dissent, Justice Boie referred to In re Madison H., 215 Ill. 2d 364 (2002), where the Illinois Supreme Court considered a similar statute that required the circuit court to make a written finding for determining whether a parent is unfit to raise a child. The supreme court found that explicit oral findings stated during a hearing are sufficient for written findings after they are transcribed because they then provide an opportunity for review of their validity on appeal. Id. at ¶21. The
¶ 31 While we agree with the court in Andino-Acosta, a circuit court must still provide an explanation of its consideration of less restrictive conditions in its verbal ruling as transcribed or in its written order. In People v. Peralta, 2023 IL App (1st) 231897-U, ¶ 13, a different panel of this court reviewed a pretrial detention order where the circuit court stated that less restrictive conditions would not mitigate the defendant’s threat to the community or his willful flight because the defendant “fired multiple shots on a city street . . . [due] to an altercation at a liquor store. His [pretrial services] score corresponds with a 3.” The court found that the explanation fell short of the requirements of section 6.1 because the circuit court did not indicate that it considered or indicated why less restrictive conditions would not mitigate the threat. Id. The court remanded the matter to the circuit court and directed it to consider the possibility of less restrictive conditions and explain why or why not such alternatives would be effective. Id.
¶ 32 We find this matter similar to Peralta because the circuit court abused its discretion by not explaining why less restrictive conditions would not mitigate Castillo’s threat to the victims or her willful flight in oral statements or written order. At the pretrial release hearing, the judge stated that no combination of conditions, including EHM at Haymarket and ultimately Castillo’s mother’s address, would provide for the safety of the victims. The judge does not provide further explanation in the transcript of the hearing as to why no conditions would provide for the victims’ safety. In the written order, the judge found that less restrictive conditions would not avoid the real and present danger because “the victims initially closed the door on [Castillo], but [she] barged in and escalated the event. [Castillo] has two prior [domestic battery] arrests upon [Lopez], [and] they share a child. On this date despite the presence of [a] minor, [Castillo] attacked the victims.”
¶ 33 While these factors stated in the order are certainly reasons why defendant is being charged and poses a risk of harm to a person or community, they do not indicate why lesser restrictions would not mitigate the danger or Castillo’s willful flight. See People v. Turner, 2024 IL App (1st) 02082-U, ¶ 21. Castillo has zero criminal convictions, and the charges related to her prior domestic battery arrests were dropped. Pretrial services gave Castillo scores of one for new criminal activity and one for failure to appear. Castillo has participated in a series of treatment programs while detained to improve herself, including group therapy, substance abuse treatment, and parenting classes. Neither the oral statements from the transcript of the hearing or the written detention order explain why less restrictive conditions would not mitigate Castillo’s threat to the victims or her willful flight, as required under the Act. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶ 23.
¶ 34 In assessing the oral statements and written order, the circuit court did not explain its reasons why less restrictive conditions to Castillo’s pretrial release would not mitigate the real and present threat to the victims or her willful flight. As such, we conclude that its denial of pretrial release was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the circuit court for compliance with the Act, specifically to consider alternatives to detention, including “zero tolerance” EHM at Haymarket and eventually Castillo’s mother’s home, and explain why or why not these alternatives would mitigate her threat to the victims or her willful flight.1
¶ 35 CONCLUSION
¶ 36 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the circuit court’s pretrial detention order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this order.
¶ 37 Reversed and remanded with directions.
Attorneys for Appellant: Sharone R. Mitchell, Jr. Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Ross K. Holberg, Assistant Public Defender), for appellant.
Attorneys for Appellee: Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Mariela Guzman, Assistant State’s Attorney), for the People.