THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLOS J. MORALES-VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 2-23-0346
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
December 22, 2023
2023 IL App (2d) 230346-U
JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hutchinson and Schostok concurred in the judgment.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County. No. 23-CF-1752 Honorable Patricia S. Fix, Judge, Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: The trial court erred in granting the State‘s untimely petition for denial of defendant‘s pretrial release. Vacated and remanded.
¶ 2 Defendant, Carlos J. Morales-Vargas, appeals an order granting the State‘s petition to detain him prior to trial pursuant to article 110 of the
I. BACKGROUND
¶ 3
¶ 5 On August 30, 2023, defendant‘s bond was set at 10% of $750,000. Defendant was unable to post bond and remained in detention throughout the underlying proceedings.
¶ 6 On September 18, 2023, the pretrial release provisions of the Act became effective. At no point in the underlying proceedings did defendant petition to be released from detention, or to modify the conditions of his release.
¶ 7 On September 20, 2023, a grand jury indicted defendant on four separate counts for (1) unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intеnt to deliver (
¶ 8
¶ 9 The circuit court conducted a detention hearing on September 26, 2023. After considering the State‘s proffer, the exhibits, and the arguments of counsel, the trial court entered a written order of detention. The order stated that the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was evident and the presumption great that defendant had committed an offense listed in
¶ 10 In addition to the written order, on the record, the trial court emphasized that the charged conduct related to three separate transactions which occurred on different dates, and that at the time of his arrest defendant was released on bond facing additional possession charges. The trial court stated that, “[P]eople with multiple police contact[s] ultimately become threats to the community. *** People who continue to disregard laws when released in the community whilе on bond or in general, ergo, eventually become threats to the community.”
¶ 11 Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the detention order.
II. ANALYSIS
¶ 12
¶ 14 Regarding the merits of the State‘s verified petition to detain, defendant argues that thе State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, based on the specifiс, articulable facts of the case. In addition, defendant argues 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. Finally, defendant argued that the circuit court еrred in its determination that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably ensure the appearance of defendant for later hearings or prevent him from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. The State responds that defendant neither challenged the timeliness of the State‘s verified petition to detain nor objected to the circuit court conducting a hearing on the State‘s petition. The State argues that because defendant failed to raise these issues below or in his notice of appeal, he has forfeited these contentions. In addition, the State contends that defendant‘s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit.
¶ 15 It is well-established that, for a criminal defendant to preserve an issue for review on appeal, the defendant must object in the trial court. People v. Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 15. An
¶ 16 Defendant‘s argument involves an issue of statutory interpretation which we review de novo. The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Ryan v. Board of Trustees of the General Assembly Retirement System, 236 Ill. 2d 315, 319 (2010). The best indication of the legislature‘s intent is the plain language of the statute itself. Id. In determining the plain meaning of statutory language, the court looks to the statute as a whole, the subject it addresses, and the apparent intent of the legislature. People v. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d 312, 323 (2007). Where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it must be applied without resorting to additional tools of statutory interpretation. Benzakry v. Patel, 2017 IL App (3d) 160162, ¶ 74.
¶ 17 Under the plain language of subsection 110-6.1(c)(1) of the Code, the State may file a petition to detain either at the defendant‘s first appearance before a judge, or within 21 days after defendant‘s arrest and release.
¶ 18 Here, the State‘s petition to detain was filed on September 26, 2023, after defendant‘s first appearance. Defendant had not been released from detention at the time the State‘s petition was filed. Moreover, defendant had not been charged with any new offense, which could have implicated section 110-6 оf the Code. Thus, the State‘s petition to deny pretrial release was untimely, and the court did not have authority to detain defendant pursuant to the untimely petition. People v. Rios, 2023 IL App (5th) 230724, ¶ 12; People v. Vingara, 2023 IL App (5th) 230698, ¶ 18.2 We therefore vacate the trial court‘s order for detеntion denying defendant‘s pretrial release.
¶ 19 While sections 110-6(a), and 6.1(c)(1) are not applicable to the circumstances in this case, section 110-7.5(b) provides that, “[o]n or after [the effective date], any person whо remains in pretrial detention after having been ordered released with pretrial conditions, including the condition of depositing security, shall be entitled to a hearing under subsection (e) of Section 110-5.”
¶ 20 Accordingly, on remand, defendant may elect to stand on the terms of his originаl pretrial condition, which would require no action on his part, or he may file a motion for a hearing under section 110-5(e) of the Code.
III. CONCLUSION
¶ 21 ¶ 22 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County is vacated and the cause remanded.
¶ 23 Order vacated; cause remanded.