THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plаintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM DALLEFELD, Defendant-Appellant.
NO. 4-23-0925
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT
December 12, 2023
2023 IL App (4th) 230925-U
JUSTICE ZENOFF delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice DeArmond and Justice Steigmann concurred in the judgment.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Fulton County. No. 23CF73. Honorable Thomаs B. Ewing, Judge Presiding.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court vacated the trial court‘s order dеnying defendant pretrial release where the trial court failed to make sufficient findings and remanded for a new detention hearing. Defendant‘s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was forfeited because that issue was not raised in his notice of appeal.
¶ 2 Defendant, William Dallefeld, appeals an order denying his pretrial release under article 110 of the
I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 On April 10, 2023, the State charged defendant with three counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (
¶ 5 On September 18, 2023, defendant filed a motion seeking a “hearing pursuant to
¶ 6 On September 27, 2023, the trial court held a detention hearing. The State argued that the court should deny pretrial release because defendant was a “danger to the community and a specific person as well as a flight risk.” Specifically, the State argued that the charges defendant faced were “all extremely serious offenses, which if convicted are conseсutive sentences from 6 to 60 years.” The State argued that, given the sentences defendant faced, “the motivation to *** abscond would be fairly high.” The State further argued,
“And, we have a 46-year[-]old person with аllegations of someone under the age of 13 years committing multiple sexual acts that are, just to put it as mildly as possible, just disgusting. And then on top of that, he had charges of child pornography for underagе children, being pictures and, of some type or another, of underage children in the possession of this defendant at the time he was arrested.
We just think that protecting the community is something that the State is wоrried about, and we also think because of the severity of the penalty, if he were to be released, there would be a likelihood of him absconding from justice. So the State believes the chargеs speak for themself [sic].”
¶ 8 Following defendant‘s testimony, the trial cоurt explained that, “[b]ased upon what I‘ve heard and the proffer, I find that there would be a risk and danger to the community and specific persons to release the defendant as well as be a flight risk; and it‘s аppropriate to detain him at this point.” In its written order, the court denied pretrial release and determined that less restrictive conditions would not avoid a real and present threat to the sаfety of any person or persons or the community based upon the specific articulable facts of the case or prevent defendant‘s willful flight from prosecution. The entirety of the court‘s writtеn findings were as follows:
“a. That there would be a risk and danger to the community and specific individuals based upon the specific facts of this case; and
b. That based upon the severity of the charges the defendant poses a flight risk.”
¶ 9 This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
¶ 12 We first address defendant‘s second argument on appeal. In his memorandum, defendant contends that the denial of his pretrial release should be reversed “because thе State did not file a petition to deny pretrial release and any such petition would have been untimely, and defense counsel was both constitutionally ineffective and statutorily unreasonable in explicitly inviting the [trial] court to ‘continue [the] Detention of the Defendant.’ ” However, this argument is not in defendant‘s notice of appeal.
¶ 13 In filing this appeal, defendant utilized the notice of appeal form in the Article VI Forms Appendix to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules (see
B. Conditions of Release
¶ 16 Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial release because the State failed to present evidence that defendant presented a threat to anyone‘s safety or posed a high likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution.
¶ 17 We review the trial court‘s findings under the Act for an abuse of discretion. People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶¶ 10-11. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court‘s decision is arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would agree with the trial court‘s position. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 10.
¶ 18 We conclude that the trial court‘s findings were insufficient for this court to conduct a meaningful review. In its oral ruling, the trial court provided, “[b]ased upon what I‘ve heard and the proffer, I find that there would be a risk and danger to the community and specific persons to release the defendant as well as be a flight risk; and it‘s appropriate to detain him at this point.” The court, however, did not detail the findings serving as the basis for its conclusion. The court‘s written order likewise provided no such detail, as it asserted only that “therе would be a risk and danger to the community and specific individuals based upon the specific facts of this case” and
“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 willful flight from prosecution.”
725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West 2022) .
The court‘s oral and written rulings fall short of complying with this legislative requirement of addressing less restrictive conditions of release. See Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶ 23 (concluding that the trial court did not adequately address less rеstrictive conditions of release where its findings were insufficient for failing to provide any detail or explanation for the court‘s determination).
¶ 19 Absent adequate findings from the trial court, we are unable tо address the sufficiency of the facts underlying the court‘s decision to deny pretrial release. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶ 24 (“While the facts underlying the court‘s decision may well have been sufficient to deny defendant pretrial relеase on any combination of nonmonetary conditions, we cannot supply the missing conclusion; the Act requires that these matters be addressed by the trial court.“). Accordingly, we conclude that the court abused its discretion by failing to make a record adequate to allow meaningful review of its exercise of discretion. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶ 24.
III. CONCLUSION
¶ 22 Vacated and remanded.