THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHASTITY WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 1-24-0341B
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
April 26, 2024
2024 IL App (1st) 240341U
Honorable Geraldine A. D’Souza, Judge, presiding.
SIXTH DIVISION. NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(c)(1).
Justices Hyman and Tailor concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The circuit court‘s order denying defendant‘s pretrial release is affirmed where the court‘s findings that proof was evident and the presumption great that defendant committed the offense of first-degree murder, defendant posed a real and present threat to safety of the community, and no condition or combination of conditions for pretrial release could mitigate defendant‘s threat to the community were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the decision to detain was not an abuse of discretion.
¶ 3 BACKGROUND
¶ 4 Williams was arrested on January 18, 2022, and charged with six counts of first-degree murder (
¶ 5 The State proffered that on or about January 17, 2022, the victim and his girlfriend, codefendant Porter, had an argument. After leaving the apartment that she shared with the victim, Porter contacted Williams – her cousin – and stated that she was done with the victim. Subsequently, codefendant Tate was contacted and instructed “to beat up” the victim. On January 18, 2022, at 11:30 a.m., Porter and Williams went to the victim‘s apartment, but he was not home
¶ 6 The victim arrived at his apartment around 1:10 p.m., and Williams texted Tate advising that the victim was home and to enter the apartment through the back door. Then, Tate and Edwards – another codefendant – entered through the back door and shot the victim. The victim returned fire before getting into his vehicle and fleeing the apartment. Police found the victim three blocks away from the apartment lying in the street and transported him to the hospital, where he later died. Officers then arrived at the victim‘s apartment, where they found Williams caring for Tate, who was shot during the incident. Officers recovered three cellphones from the apartment, which showed the text messages between Williams and the codefendants.
¶ 7 At the detention hearing, the State argued because of her actions and the fact that officers found her at the apartment after the shooting with the cell phones, Williams posed a real and present threat to the safety of the victim‘s family. Williams argues that while the facts of the case show that she texted one of the codefendants to remove the victim from the apartment, she did not tell the codefendant to bring a gun or kill the victim. Williams has a prior conviction for aggravated robbery from 2018, but she alleges that she has not had any other convictions or interactions with police since.
¶ 8 Williams asserts that she is a lifelong resident of Cook County, and at the time of the incident, she worked at a packing company as a laborer and as a self-employed family and relationship advisor. She has two children, aged seven and five, who are currently residing with her elderly and infirm mother and stepfather. Before her arrest, Williams homeschooled her children and was their sole provider. While in detention, she completed several programs, such as the GED program. Williams argues that she should be granted pretrial release so that she can
¶ 9 The circuit court granted the State‘s petition to continue detention finding proof is evident or the presumption great that Williams committed first-degree murder with a firearm, Williams posed a real and present threat to safety when she acted in concert to set up the victim for Tate and Edwards to enter his apartment and fatally shoot him; and no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate her threat to safety because Williams acted in response to issues brought to her by Porter and has a prior aggravated robbery conviction. This appeal followed.
¶ 10 JURISDICTION
¶ 11 Williams appeals from the circuit court‘s order of February 6, 2024. She filed this notice of appeal on February 15, 2024; thus, the notice was timely, and this court has jurisdiction. See
¶ 12 ANALYSIS
¶ 13 Under the Code, all persons charged with an offense shall be eligible for pretrial release before conviction.
¶ 14 While appellate decisions conflict as to the precise standard of review for pretrial release orders from the circuit court, we agree with those panels that have found a two-tiered standard of review appropriate. People v. Zavala, 2024 IL App (1st) 232355-U, ¶ 24 (citing People v. Castillo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232315, ¶¶ 16-18). On appeal, the circuit court‘s findings of fact are reviewed under the “manifest weight of the evidence” standard. Castillo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232315, ¶ 17. A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or if the finding itself is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. People v. Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322, 332 (2008). The circuit court‘s ultimate determination of pretrial release is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Castillo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232315, ¶ 18. An abuse of discretion occurs where the circuit court‘s decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or fanciful or where no reasonable person would have taken the position adopted by the circuit court. People v. Becker, 239 Ill. 2d 215, 234 (2010).
¶ 15 On her notice of appeal form, Williams checks off three boxes arguing the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the proof is evident or the presumption great that she committed first-degree murder; (2) she poses a real and present threat to the safety of any persons or the community, based on the specific, articulable facts of the case; and (3) no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate that threat.
¶ 16 First, Williams claims the evidence shows she merely texted a codefendant asking him to remove the victim from the apartment. Williams postures that she did not tell anyone to bring a gun to the victim‘s apartment or shoot him. As such, Williams argues there was no evidence she committed first-degree murder.
¶ 18 Under the Code, a person commits first-degree murder when he, acting alone or with other participants, commits or attempts to commit a forcible felony and while committing that felony, either he or another participant causes the death of a person.
¶ 20 While the theory raised by Williams is that she merely texted her codefendant to remove the victim from the apartment, it‘s important to note that the State‘s burden at this stage is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Pitts, 2024 IL App (1st) 232336, ¶ 35. The question is whether the circuit court‘s finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The circuit court‘s finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the cellphones found in the possession of Williams contained text messages to the other codefendants, and Williams admitted to texting them prior to the shooting.
¶ 21 Second, Williams claims the State failed to meet its burden of proving she poses a real and present threat based on the specific, articulable facts of the case. Williams claims she did not have or use a weapon at the time of the incident, nor did she cause harm to the victim. Williams notes that she only has one prior conviction for aggravated robbery. She states she has two young children who are homeschooled and are currently being cared for by her sick mother. Williams further highlights that she has participated in numerous programs while in prison. In response, the State notes the circuit court heard these arguments during the hearing and rejected them.
¶ 22 In determining whether a defendant poses a real and present threat to safety, the circuit court may consider a non-exhaustive list of factors, including the nature and circumstances of the charge; the defendant‘s prior criminal history; the age and physical condition of the defendant; and whether the defendant is known to possess or have access to weapons.
¶ 23 Finally, Williams asserts the State did not meet its burden to prove there are no conditions or combination of conditions that can mitigate her real and present threat. Williams claims that with her entire family, including her young children and elderly mother, living in Chicago, electronic monitoring can limit when she leaves her home. In response, the State notes that she is accused of first-degree murder shortly after being convicted of aggravated robbery. The State argues the circuit court reasonably found Williams required 24/7 monitoring based on her criminal history and the circumstances of the case.
¶ 24 On appeal of a pretrial detention order, the appellate court may consider an explicit and individualized oral ruling to determine whether the circuit court properly summarized its reasons for denying pretrial release. Castillo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232315, ¶ 30-31. At the detention hearing, the circuit court evaluated whether less restrictive conditions such as electronic monitoring or a curfew could mitigate the threat to safety. The court stated that based on her actions and the fact that the victim died, Williams requires 24/7 monitoring, which neither electronic monitoring nor curfew can provide. We do not find this ruling to be against the manifest weight of the evidence
¶ 25 CONCLUSION
¶ 26 The circuit court‘s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and its decision to deny pretrial release was not an abuse of discretion.
¶ 27 Affirmed.