THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EMMANUEL JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 1-24-0154B
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
May 3, 2024
2024 IL App (1st) 240154
Ankur Srivastava, Judge, presiding.
SIXTH DIVISION
No. 241104752
Honorable Ankur Srivastava, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE C.A. WALKER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Hyman and Tailor concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶ 1 Defendant Emmanuel Johnson appeals from the circuit court‘s grant of the State‘s pretrial detention petition per
BACKGROUND
¶ 2 ¶ 3 Johnson was arrested on January 7, 2024, and charged by criminal complaint with unlawful use or possession of a weapon by a felon (UUWF) (
¶ 4 At the pretrial detention hearing, the State proffered that on January 7, 2024, Chicago police officers stopped a vehicle due to an expired license plate. As the officers approached, they detected a “strong odor of cannabis emitting” from the vehicle, and the driver showed the officers a bag of marijuana. Hence, they asked the occupants of the vehicle to exit for a “narcotics search.” Johnson was the front seat passenger. He told the officers “hold on” and “[l]et me call my mom” while holding his cell phone. Officers took Johnson‘s phone, and he “began crouching in the seat,” at which point the officers removed Johnson from the vehicle, searched him, and recovered a loaded firearm from his waistband.
¶ 5 The State further proffered that Johnson could not legally possess a firearm because he was on parole at the time of his arrest for a 2014 conviction of armed robbery with a firearm. He had been out on parole for only “a little under six months” before the January 7, 2024, incident. Given these circumstances, the State argued, it was “clear” Johnson posed a real and present threat because “he received a 20 year sentence for this armed robbery with a firearm and [then] was in possession of a firearm.”
¶ 7 The circuit court granted the State‘s petition. Regarding whether Johnson posed a real and present threat, the court stated, “the bottom line is, you are on parole for a very serious offense*** another firearm offense. You have been on parole for about six months here and you picked up another gun case. *** In my view, it does show you pose a danger.”
¶ 8 Also on January 8, 2024, the circuit court entered its pretrial detention order. Regarding the real and present threat Johnson posed, the court wrote, “Defendant was just placed on parole 6 months ago after serving a 20 year sentence for armed robbery with a firearm. Defendant possessing a loaded firearm on his person while on parole for a serious and violent offense suggests that his release poses a danger to the community.”
¶ 9 On January 19, 2024, Johnson filed a notice of appeal from the circuit court‘s January 8, 2024, detention order. Johnson raised a single claim on appeal—the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he posed a real and present threat—and attached a “supplemental document” in support. Therein, Johnson argued he did not pose a threat because he only “possessed the firearm“; did not use, brandish, or threaten anyone with it; and did not engage in any “violent
JURISDICTION
¶ 10 ¶ 11 The circuit court entered its order detaining Johnson pending trial on January 8, 2024, and he filed his notice of appeal on January 19, 2024. Accordingly, the notice was timely, and this court has jurisdiction per the Code. See
ANALYSIS
¶ 12 ¶ 13 Johnson‘s lone claim on appeal is that the State did not demonstrate through clear and convincing evidence that he posed a real and present threat to a person, persons, or the community.
¶ 14 A criminal defendant is presumed eligible for pretrial release and cannot be detained pending trial unless the State files a pretrial detention petition.
¶ 16 The appropriate standard of review for pretrial detention claims arising under the Code is still a matter of debate. See People v. Pitts, 2024 IL App (1st) 232336, ¶ 14. We agree with those panels that have found a two-tiered standard of review appropriate, where, generally, the circuit court‘s findings of fact are reviewed under the manifest weight of the evidence standard, while the ultimate decision regarding pretrial detention is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See id. ¶¶ 14-29; People v. Castillo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232315, ¶ 18. Johnson‘s claim arises from the court‘s factual findings as to the second requirement the State must prove under
¶ 17 The State proffered that Johnson, while on parole for a firearm offense, was arrested while in possession of a loaded firearm. During the pretrial detention hearing, in finding Johnson posed a real and present threat, the circuit court cited the fact that Johnson‘s arrest occurred less than six months after his release on parole for armed robbery with a firearm. The court further explained in its written order that “[d]efendant possessing a loaded firearm on his person while on parole for a serious and violent offense suggests that his release poses a danger to the community.”
¶ 19 We are further guided by the factors listed in the Code that courts may consider when deciding whether a defendant poses a real and present threat. See
¶ 20 Johnson contends the State did not demonstrate he posed a real and present threat because (1) he was not charged with using the firearm he possessed in a violent or threatening manner, (2) Pretrial Services did not assign him a “New Violent Criminal Activity Flag,” and (3) his conviction, while violent, occurred almost a decade before the current arrest. These arguments fail
CONCLUSION
¶ 21 ¶ 22 The circuit court‘s finding that Johnson posed a real and present threat was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the court‘s order for pretrial detention was not an abuse of discretion. Hence, we affirm.
¶ 23 Affirmed.
Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 241104752; the Hon. Ankur Srivastava, Judge, presiding.
Attorneys for Appellant: Sharone R. Mitchell Jr., Public Defender, of Chicago (Emily Motin, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.
Attorneys for Appellee: Kimberly M. Foxx, State‘s Attorney, of Chicago (Noah Montague, Assistant State‘s Attorney, of counsel), for the People.