THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERNESTO ZAVALA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 1-23-2355B
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT SIXTH DIVISION
March 5, 2024
2024 IL App (1st) 232355-U
JUSTICE C.A. WALKER delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Oden Johnson and Justice Hyman concurred in the judgment.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. Nos. 21 CR 0088901, 21 CR 0089001. Honorable Jennifer F. Coleman, Judge, presiding.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The circuit court‘s pretrial detention order is reversed and remanded where the court did not make the required statutory findings regarding whether any condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the real and present threat defendant posed to a person, persons, or the community.
¶ 3 BACKGROUND
¶ 4 In December 2020, Zavala was charged with one count of predatory criminal sexual assault (
¶ 5 Following the enactment of the Act, Zavala filed a petition to grant pretrial release on November 6, 2023, in both cases. The State filed their petition for pretrial detention on November 27, 2023, also in both cases. The circuit court held a joint hearing on the petitions.
¶ 7 Regarding case 890, the State proffered that also on November 23, 2020, the older sister, 10 years old at the time of the alleged incident, informed her mother that Zavala abused her on November 22, 2020. Specifically, the older sister told her mother that while she watched a movie with Zavala, he positioned himself behind her while a blanket covered her body. Zavala then put his hands in the victim‘s pants and underwear and touched her vagina. Zavala only stopped when the mother appeared.
¶ 8 The State concluded, “Your Honor, it is safe to assume that there are no condition or accommodation of conditions *** that can mitigate the risk.” Counsel continued, “based on the allegations of this case and the fact that defendant has two stepdaughters, we would ask that you grant our petition for detention and deny defendant‘s petition for pretrial release.”
¶ 9 Defense counsel proffered that Zavala had no criminal background and has been a model inmate since his arrest and detention. Additionally, counsel contended that the circuit court should consider that Zavala faced only one active case following the dismissal of case 889, though he acknowledged the motion to reconsider was pending. Additionally, counsel argued that the outcry by the older sister did not occur until the younger sister‘s outcry. Counsel suggested he had “several statements of [the] older sister denying it, saying nothing happened.”
¶ 11 In rebuttal, the State explained the dismissal of case 889 was based on a jurisdictional issue of whether the events occurred in Indiana or Illinois. The State then commented that defense counsel appeared to argue “there are conditions that can prevent or ensure the safety of any person or persons in the community, and I guess [c]ounsel‘s saying that maybe having somebody watch defendant 24/7 to make sure he‘s not touching his daughters would be one of those conditions.”
¶ 12 The circuit court found that the State had shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that the proof was evident, and the presumption great, that Zavala committed an eligible offense under
¶ 13 The court further found that Zavala posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person, persons, or the community based on specific articulable facts of the case. In so finding, the circuit court stated that Zavala “took advantage of these young girls that were in his care on multiple occasions, and I do understand the defense‘s argument. That one of those cases [has been] successfully argue[d] [on a] motion to dismiss before Judge Hooks. However, that case is still pending on the motions to reconsider.” The court continued, “But even with regard to just the one case that‘s there‘s no argument still remains with regard to jurisdiction, I still find that the defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community.” It was not clear as to which case this finding applied.
¶ 15 The circuit court listed both case numbers on its written order for pretrial detention, dated November 27, 2023. In the written order, the court noted it found the proof was evident or presumption great that Zavala committed “predatory crim[inal] sex[ual] assault.” Its findings that Zavala posed a threat were that Zavala, “fondled two different stepdaughters on 2+ different dates” and the “victims were between 6-10 years” old. Finally, in stating its finding about whether a condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the threat Zavala posed, the court wrote only, “see above.”
¶ 16 On December 4, 2023, Zavala filed his notice of appeal using the form notice of appeal document.1 In the notice, Zavala checked multiple boxes. First, Zavala checked the box indicating the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the proof is evident or the presumption great that he committed the charged offense. He explained, “Because [case 889] was dismissed, the State failed to meet its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant committed the offense.”
¶ 17 Second, Zavala checked the box indicating the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he posed a real and present threat, arguing he had no criminal background, “no objection to GPS or EM monitoring,” and the “alleged victims and their families
¶ 18 Third, Zavala checked the box indicating 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 he posed. He reiterated that GPS and electronic monitoring would alleviate concerns about him contacting the alleged victims, and stated that during his incarceration, he never tried to contact the alleged victims or their mother.
¶ 19 In other sections of the notice of appeal form, Zavala noted he had a large family, strong ties to the community, and summarized generally, “[T]hree years awaiting trial is too long. Zavala was initially charged with child abuse to two victims. The Court dismissed one of the two cases. The remaining case does not allege continued abuse, but rather a one-time act. The fact that the Defendant has no criminal background should not be taken lightly.”
¶ 20 JURISDICTION
¶ 21 Zavala appeals from the circuit court‘s order of November 27, 2023. He filed his notice of appeal on December 4, 2023, and thus the notice was timely, and this court has jurisdiction per the Act. See
¶ 22 ANALYSIS
¶ 23 Under the Act, a criminal defendant is presumed eligible for pretrial release, and cannot be detained pending trial unless the State files a petition for pretrial detention.
¶ 24 Reviewing appellate court panels have disagreed thus far on the appropriate standard of review for claims arising under the Act. 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. Zavala‘s claims generally arise from the court‘s factual findings as to the three requirements the State must prove under
¶ 26 We find that the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to create a sufficient record for this court to review its factual findings regarding mitigating conditions. Accordingly, we reverse the court‘s detention order in both case 889 and case 890, and remand for the court to hold
¶ 27 On this record, we do not know the basis for the circuit court‘s conclusion, in either case 889 or case 890, and thus cannot exercise meaningful review. As the court explained in Martin, “[w]hile the facts underlying the court‘s decision may well have been sufficient to deny defendant pretrial release on any combination of nonmonetary conditions, we cannot supply the missing conclusion; the Act requires that these matters be addressed by the trial court.” Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶ 24.
¶ 28 The State argues that the circuit court provided factual findings for its decision, but in support the State only cites to a passage in the report of proceedings that does not contain any findings by the court, on mitigating conditions or otherwise.
¶ 29 In closing, we acknowledge the challenges before the circuit court and the parties in conducting appropriate pretrial detention proceedings on Zavala‘s two matters. Case 889 and case 890 largely overlap both factually and with respect to the arguments for and against pretrial
¶ 30 CONCLUSION
¶ 31 Because the record lacks sufficient findings regarding mitigating conditions to permit meaningful review, we reverse the circuit court‘s pretrial detention order regarding both case 889 and case 890, and remand for new pretrial detention hearings in both matters, at which the court must make the required statutory findings. Zavala is to remain detained pending resolution of the new pretrial detention hearings on remand.
¶ 32 Reversed; remanded with instructions.