THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER GIBBS, Defendant-Appellant.
NO. 5-23-0700
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
November 2, 2023
2023 IL App (5th) 230700-U
JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Welch and Moore concurred in the judgment.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Massac County. No. 23-CF-94. Honorable Cord Z. Wittig, Judge, presiding.
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
ORDER
Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant‘s pretrial release where the court‘s findings that the defendant met the dangerousness standard, posing a real and present threat to the safety of any person or the cоmmunity, and that no less restrictive conditions would avoid the real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 1 The defendant, Christopher Gibbs, who was charged in this case with robbery, aggravated battery, criminal sexual abuse, and domestic battery (enhanced sentence), appeals the trial court‘s order denying the defendant‘s pretrial release pursuant to the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today (SAFE-T) Act. See
¶ 2 Pretrial release is governed by the SAFE-T Act as codified in article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (
¶ 3 The SAFE-T Act provides a nonexclusive list of factors that the trial court may consider in making a determination of “dangerousness,” i.e., that the defendant poses a real and present threat to any person or the community.
¶ 4 In order to reverse a trial court‘s finding that the State presented clear and convincing evidence showing that mandatory conditions of release would fail to protect any person or the community, and/or that defendant had a high likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution, or defendant failed to comply with previously issued conditions of pretrial release thereby requiring a modification or revocation of the previously issued conditions of pretrial release, the reviewing court must conclude that the trial court‘s findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. See In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181, 208 (2001) (setting a similar standard of review for requirement of clear and convincing evidence by the State in juvenile proceedings). “A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or if the finding itself is
¶ 5 If the trial court finds the State proved a valid threat to a person‘s safety or the community‘s safety and/or defendant‘s likely willful flight to avoid prosecution, or defendant‘s failure to abide by previously issued conditions of pretrial release, then the trial court must determine what pretrial release conditions, “if any, will reasonably ensure the appearance of a defendant as required or the safety of any other person or the community and the likelihood of compliance by the defendant with all the conditions of pretrial release.”
¶ 6 On September 19, 2023, the defendant was charged by information with four felony counts in Massac County, Illinois. Count I alleged robbery in violation of section 18-1 of the Criminal Code of 2012 (Code) (
¶ 7 On September 19, 2023, the trial cоurt held a pretrial release hearing. After considering the State‘s proffer, including a police report and photographic exhibits, and the arguments of counsel, the trial court entered a written order of detention. In the order, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was charged with the offenses alleged, and thаt at least one of the offenses was a qualifying offense under the SAFE-T Act. The trial court further found by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons in the community based upon the articulable facts of the case, and that no conditions could mitigate the reаl and present threat to the safety of any person or the community. Specifically, the trial court found that the offenses had occurred in public; that the defendant had a history of violence, especially against women; and, that the defendant was on bond in another felony case at the time these offenses occurred, with a condition that he
¶ 8 On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in denying pretrial release. In his notice of appeal,2 the defendant argues that the State failed to meet its burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant posed a threat to the safety of any person because the police report offered at the detention hearing indicates that there was a video that corroborated the victim‘s statement, although the video was not produced at the hearing. The defendant further claims that the police report indicates that the video did not show any action that caused injury to the victim. The defendant also argues that the State failed to meet its burden by clear and convincing evidence that there were no conditions that could mitigate the defendant‘s threat to the safety of any person in that there was no evidence that the defendant would not have abided by a no-contact order.
¶ 9 In response, the State аrgues that it met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed a qualifying offense under the SAFE-T Act; that the defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person, or the community, based upon the articulable facts of the case; and, that no condition or conditions could mitigate against the rеal and present threat. The State also argued that it presented evidence that the victim suffered harm at the hands of the defendant; that the
¶ 10 The record reveals thаt at the detention hearing on September 19, 2023, the State informed the trial court that the defendant had been charged with three detainable offenses: robbery, domestic battery (enhanced sentence), and criminal sexual abuse. The State then offered, as Exhibit 1, the police report that described the conduct that gave rise to the charges. Spеcifically, the police report indicated that on September 18, 2023, at 5:23 a.m., the Metropolis Police Department received a 9-1-1 call from Karis Ezell indicating that she had been in a physical altercation with Christopher Gibbs and needed an escort back to her home. She was at the Casey‘s General Store (Casey‘s). Ezell was taken to the hospital. While there, she was interviewed by officers using a body camera. Ezell knew the defendant and had agreed to meet him in an area near Casey‘s. The defendant allegedly accused Ezell of being unfaithful to him and wanted to go through her phone. The conversation continued until the defendant suggested that they go to Casey‘s. Ezell claimed that as they walked to Casey‘s, the defendant put his hand down her pants. When she refused that gesture, the defendant then grabbed her by the finger and dragged her across the street. Ezell claimed that the defendant then hit her in the head, “kicked her in her hip and the side of her chest, took his nails and dug into the palm of her hand, and pushed her down while she was attempting to elude him.” Ezell ran into Casey‘s and the defendant followed her in. Ezell alleged that the defendant then tried to pull her out of Casey‘s, but she held on to the counter. Finally, the defendant took Ezell‘s phone and left. Ezell used the phone of a Casey‘s employee to call 9-1-1. The defendant was arrested shortly
¶ 11 During the hearing, the State also argued that the defendant posed a threat to the safety of persons or the community based on the current charges and because he was out on bond in another case (23-CF-93) involving violence to a separate victim when the current charges were filed. The police report describing the facts of that case was offered as Exhibit 2. The State also offered evidence of the defendant‘s criminal history, including a plea of guilty to a charge of domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor, in Jackson County, Illinois. Copies of the plea and the judgment of conviction were offered as Exhibit 3.
¶ 12 Counsel for the defendant argued that while the defendant had a criminal history, his last battery charge was in 2013. Defense counsel also pointed out that the charge on which the defendant had bonded out had a no-contact provision, which the defendant had abided by. Therefore, there was no reason to believе the same kind of provision could not apply in this case. Finally, defense counsel argued that the defendant was employed and being detained would jeopardize his employment.
¶ 13 At the conclusion of the proffers, and after examining the exhibits, and considering the arguments of counsel, the trial court found that the defendant was charged with detainable offenses. The trial court also found that the proof was evident, and the presumption great as to those offenses; that the defendant posed a real threat to the safety of a person or persons or the community based upon the following specific and articulable
¶ 14 Additionally, the trial court found that the defendant had a substantial history of violence, including violence against women, as evidenced by the prior charge in 23-CF-93, and that the defendant had posted bond in the prior case, with the condition that he would not violate any criminal statutes. The trial court further found that the proximity of thе two cases did not give the defendant time to violate a no-contact order in 23-CF-93, and that no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the threat to the physical safety of any person or the community at large. In addition, the trial court found that the statements of the victim were corroborated by the photographs of the physicаl injuries suffered by the victim. The trial court concluded that the State had presented clear and convincing evidence that detention was necessary. The trial court then ordered that the defendant be detained. A written order containing the court‘s findings and decision was issued that day.
¶ 15 Based on our review of the record, and any memoranda submitted, we find that the trial court‘s finding that the defendant met the dangerousness standard, posing a real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community, was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; and, that the trial court‘s determination that no less restrictive conditions would avoid the real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community wаs not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 17 Affirmed.