THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. IVAN PERALTA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 1-23-1897B
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
December 27, 2023
2023 IL App (1st) 231897-U
THIRD DIVISION. 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). Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 23 MC 1112426. Honorable Barbara L. Dawkins, Judge, presiding.
Presiding Justice Reyes and D.B. Walker concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
Held: We reverse and remand this matter brought pursuant to the Pretrial Fairness Act (Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023)), where the circuit court failed to provide a written summary explaining why less restrictive means would be insufficient to mitigate the threat defendant‘s release would present, as required under subsection 110-6.1(h)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
¶ 1 Defendant-appellant Ivan Peralta has filed a Pretrial Fairness Act (PFA) appeal under
¶ 2
BACKGROUND
¶ 3 On the night of September 30, 2023, Peralta and his uncle were involved in a physical altercation with a group of men outside of a liquor store in Chicago. Peralta has tendered a 56-second video of the incident from a nearby security camera that shows the events immediately prior and subsequent to the shootings outside of the liquor store. A man punches Peralta‘s uncle in the face. Peralta then shoots that man and another man who had not struck the uncle. One of the men died and the other survived the incident. At the time of the incident, Peralta held a valid firearm owner‘s identification card and concealed carry license.
¶ 4 Based on the events of September 30, the State has charged Peralta with first degree murder and attempt first degree murder. Pretrial services assigned Peralta a score of 2 out of 6 on the “new criminal activity” scale, and a 1 out of 6 on the “failure to appear” scale. The State successfully petitioned the circuit court for defendant‘s pretrial detention. The court found the following: (1) the proof was evident or the presumption was great that defendant has committed an offense that qualified for pretrial detention because there is a video of defendant firing multiple shots at a group of people during an altercation; (2) defendant‘s release would pose a real and present threat to the safety of a person, persons, or the community, as he is seen discharging a firearm into a group of people, which is a disproportionate response to the threat in this incident; and (3) no condition or combination of conditions of pretrial release can mitigate that threat as he is seen firing multiple
¶ 5
ANALYSIS
¶ 6 On appeal, Peralta argues that he should be released from pretrial detention because the State failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) he committed murder or attempted to commit murder because he acted in self-defense; (2) he is a danger to any person or the community; and (3) no less restrictive conditions, such as electronic monitoring, required reporting to pretrial services, and curfew, could mitigate the threat he poses to other persons and the community.
¶ 7 In response, the State argues that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to detain Peralta after finding that his conduct satisfied the three elements of the PFA inquiry. In essence, the State rehashed the court‘s verbal and written findings, in which the court briefly noted each element and why Peralta satisfied it. The State did not address whether the court fulfilled its obligation to provide a written summary explaining why or why not less restrictive conditions could mitigate the threat Peralta presents.
¶ 8 In considering this appeal, this court has reviewed Peralta‘s notice of appeal, as well as his supporting recording, supporting memorandum, and the 56-second video clip of the shooting he tendered. We have also reviewed the State‘s response to Peralta‘s memorandum.
¶ 9 Under section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, all defendants are presumed to be eligible for pretrial release, unless the State can show, by clear and convincing evidence, that a particular defendant should be denied pretrial release.
¶ 10 In support of its finding as to the first element, the circuit court noted that “Defendant is on video firing multiple shots at a group of people during an altercation.” We find it evident that, based on the video footage, defendant did commit qualifying offenses by discharging a firearm into a group of men, killing one and injuring another. Both first degree murder and attempt first degree murder are qualifying offenses under subsection 110-6.1(a) of the Code.
¶ 11 As to the second element, the circuit court noted that “Defendant fired multiple shots into a crowd during/after a physical altercation which was a disproportionate response to the threat. Defendant‘s PSI level corresponds with a level 3.” Again, based on the video footage, it is evident that Peralta poses a real and present threat to other people and the community at large. The video shows Peralta discharging his gun into a group of people on a busy Chicago street. During the 56-second video, at least four vehicles drive down the street adjacent to the liquor store, and at least
¶ 12 As to the third element, the circuit court stated that “Defendant fired multiple shots on a city street [illegible] to an altercation at a liquor store. His PSA score corresponds with a 3.” We find that this explanation falls short of the requirements of subsection 110-6.1(h)(1), which mandate 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.”
¶ 13
CONCLUSION
¶ 14 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court, and remand the matter for consideration consistent with this order.
¶ 15 Reversed and remanded.