People v. Alcantara

2024 IL App (5th) 240195-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: April 23, 2024
• Docket: 5-24-0195
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2024 IL App (5th) 240195-U NOTICE NOTICE Decision filed 04/23/24. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NOS. 5-24-0195, 5-24-0294 cons. Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for not precedent except in the

Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE limited circumstances allowed the same. under Rule 23(e)(1). APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Douglas County. ) v. ) No. 24-CF-20 ) MANUEL ALCANTARA, ) Honorable Katherine D. Watson and ) Honorable Chad S. Beckett, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judges, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

PRESIDING JUSTICE VAUGHAN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Barberis and Boie concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The trial court’s orders granting the State’s petition to deny pretrial release and continuing denial of pretrial release are affirmed where the trial court’s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence and the orders denying pretrial release were not an abuse of discretion.

¶2 Defendant timely appeals the trial court’s order denying his pretrial release and subsequent

order continuing the denial of his pretrial release pursuant to Public Act 101-652, § 10-255 (eff.

Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today (SAFE-

T) Act (Act). See Pub. Act 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023); Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248,

¶ 52 (lifting stay and setting effective date as September 18, 2023). For the following reasons, we

affirm both of the trial court’s orders.

1 ¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 On February 5, 2024, defendant was charged, by information, with attempted second

degree murder in violation of sections 9-2(a)(1) and 8-4(a) of the Criminal Code of 2012 (720

ILCS 5/9-2(a)(1), 8-4(a) (West 2022)), a Class 2 felony, and aggravated domestic battery in

violation of section 12-3.3(a) (id. § 12-3.3(a)), a Class 2 felony. The public defender was appointed

to represent defendant.

¶5 Also on February 5, 2024, a pretrial investigation report was filed that revealed defendant

was 58 years old and single. He had four adult children who resided in Mexico. He had other

family members who resided in Chicago. He had been living with his paramour for one month in

Arcola. Defendant was employed full-time with Libman. He had no criminal history. Defendant

reported no substance abuse history or mental health issues. He had high blood pressure for which

he took medication daily. Defendant reported having a driver’s license and a working vehicle to

transport himself to future court dates. The pretrial services officer who conducted the

investigation was unable to reach defendant’s sister to verify the information supplied by

defendant. The Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument-Revised (VPRAI-R) scored

defendant at a 0 out of 14 and classified him as a level 1 out of 6 with a 6.1% likelihood of

recidivism while on pretrial release.

¶6 On February 5, 2024, the State filed a verified petition to deny defendant pretrial release.

The petition alleged that defendant was charged with a qualifying offense and posed a real and

present threat to the safety of any person, persons, or the community.

¶7 The trial court, Judge Watson, conducted the hearing on the State’s petition to deny pretrial

release on February 6, 2024. The State first asked the court to take judicial notice of the probable

cause affidavit that was filed in the case and supported the court’s finding of probable cause. The

2 State proffered that defendant was arrested for attempted second degree murder and aggravated

domestic battery after police were called to his residence that he shared with the victim. It further

proffered that defendant stabbed the victim three times—once in the rib cage, once in the left-side

abdomen, and once in the left leg. The victim was able to lock herself in the bathroom until police

arrived. She was in fear for her life and thought defendant was going to kill her. Defendant also

made several statements to the victim and the police that he wanted to kill himself.

¶8 The State argued the incident was “severely dangerous.” It averred it was not a simple

battery, but one that resulted in stab wounds with the victim being transported to the hospital and

defendant being transported to the hospital due to his suicidal threats. The State also asked the

court to take into account defendant’s psychological state. It informed the court that defendant was

on suicide watch at the jail. The State argued that given the violent circumstances of the incident,

the victim’s wounds, and the specific danger defendant posed to the victim and to himself, there

were no appropriate less restrictive options than the denial of pretrial release.

¶9 Defense counsel proffered that the victim was discharged from the hospital and did not

have an extended stay. He further proffered that defendant was almost 60 years old, had no criminal

history, and the pretrial services report indicated he scored very low for recidivism. Defendant

admittedly had a problem with alcohol but was willing to abide by conditions of release that would

include abstaining from alcohol and controlled substances, obtaining a substance use evaluation,

and entering treatment. Defendant would also agree to abide by any no-contact order, submit to

electronic monitoring, and report to pretrial services.

¶ 10 Defense counsel argued that there was no evidence submitted suggesting that defendant

could not abide by conditions of release. He averred the court should consider defendant’s history

3 of nearly “six decades of no criminal charges or activities or allegations of domestic violence or

allegations of any violence whatsoever.”

¶ 11 The court stated that it considered the pretrial investigation report, the probable cause

affidavit, and the statements made by the attorneys. It stated that although defendant had no prior

record, domestic violence crimes were not always reported and the level of violence in the current

incident was concerning. The court noted that the victim felt she would be killed. It further noted

that defendant “presents as mentally unstable at this time and at the time of the offense.” The court

opined that the presentence investigation report indicated that defendant did not have a stable

residence other than the one he shared with the victim. The court then found that the proof was

evident and the presumption was great that defendant committed a detainable offense and that he

posed a real and present danger to himself, specific persons, or the community and that there were

no conditions of release that could mitigate the real and present threat defendant posed to himself,

others, or the community. The court added, “These things can be reviewed as he comes back before

the Court, his mental stability and whether he has a stable residence that is separate and apart from

the victim and the Court may consider GPS home monitoring at that time. The Court finds that

those are not viable options for the reasons previously stated.”

¶ 12 A written order of detention was filed on February 6, 2024. The order found the proof was

evident or the presumption great that defendant committed a detainable offense. The order further

found that defendant posed a real a present threat to the safety of any person(s) or the community

and no condition, or combination of conditions, could mitigate the real and present threat to the

safety of any person or persons. The order found that less restrictive conditions would not assure

the safety of any persons, or the community based on (1) defendant’s having caused bodily harm

to a family member by stabbing her with a knife, (2) defendant’s threatening to kill himself,

4 (3) defendant’s lack of a stable residence, (4) defendant’s use of alcohol to the point of

intoxication, and (5) the victim’s fear for her safety. The order thereafter committed defendant to

the custody of the sheriff for confinement in the county jail pending trial. On February 6, 2024,

defendant timely appealed the order denying pretrial release in People v. Alcantara, No. 5-24-

0195. Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)(2) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023).

¶ 13 On February 14, 2024, defense counsel orally moved for a review of defendant’s detention.

Thereafter, the trial court, Judge Beckett, conducted a hearing on the motion. Defense counsel

again proffered that defendant had no prior record, no prior allegations of domestic violence, and

no prior orders of protection. He opined that the main concerns Judge Watson had when the court

originally detained defendant were that defendant had no stable residence and his mental health

was unstable. Counsel stated that since the date of the original detention hearing, defendant’s sister

and her husband offered their home in Cicero, Illinois, as a stable place for defendant to reside

while this case was pending. They would guarantee defendant’s attendance at court dates and

would cooperate with GPS fittings of defendant if the court deemed it appropriate. Counsel further

proffered that he had spoken with the jail administrator who reported that defendant’s mental

health had stabilized since his arrest. Defendant met with substance abuse peer specialists and with

personnel from Douglas County Mental Health. Counsel argued that with those changes in

defendant’s circumstances, defendant’s lack of a prior criminal record, and lack of failures to

appear, along with there being no allegations of ongoing domestic abuse in the relationship

between defendant and the victim, the court should find there were conditions that could be

imposed to provide safety for the victim and/or others that did not necessitate defendant’s

continued detention.

5 ¶ 14 The State argued that it opposed defendant’s request. It proffered that the charges against

defendant, aggravated domestic battery and attempted second degree murder, were both severe

and detainable offenses. It reiterated that defendant stabbed the victim three times with a knife and

the victim feared for her life. The State averred that although defendant may no longer have been

a danger to himself, provided he continued treatment, the severity of the offenses indicated

defendant posed an ongoing threat to the victim. The State argued that due to the nature of the

offenses, it objected to any fashion of pretrial release. It added, if the court decided to grant pretrial

release, that the court order defendant to have no contact with the victim.

¶ 15 The court stated that it was mindful of the previous findings by Judge Watson. It further

stated that the previous findings regarding defendant’s lack of residence and mental instability

were not the court’s only considerations. Other considerations included the defendant’s infliction

of bodily harm to a family member, the victim, with a knife as well as his threats to harm himself.

In addition, the victim feared for her safety and her life. The court acknowledged that there had

been “a little bit of progress” on defendant’s part over the eight days since the original detention

hearing. The court stated that despite the progress it heard, it did not have “a detailed understanding

of what the defendant’s mental health situation is now.” It heard he was stabilized, but it did not

hear “anything from a professional telling us how he got to where he was going and whether or

not he truly is someone” it could “put faith in and will (a) remain sober; and (b) remain free from

the kind of activities alleged *** in the Information *** through proffer by the victim.” The court

further stated that it did not have detailed information about the residence with defendant’s sister

and expressed concern that the residence was some distance from the court. The court found that

“without a better understanding of defendant’s mental health situation” and the likelihood that he

would “remain free from consuming alcohol or substances,” it could not “say today that he does

6 not pose a real and present threat to the defendant—to the victim or to the community.” It then

denied defendant pretrial release, finding there were “no combination of conditions [that] would

satisfy the Court’s concern in this regard.” The court entered its order by docket entry. On February

26, 2024, defendant timely appealed the order continuing the denial of pretrial release in People v.

Alcantara, No. 5-24-0294. Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)(2) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023). We consolidated the appeals

for purpose of this disposition.

¶ 16 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 17 Pretrial release—including the conditions related thereto—is governed by statute. See Pub.

Act 101-652, § 10-255 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023); Pub. Act 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023). A

defendant’s pretrial release may be denied only in certain statutorily limited situations. 725 ILCS

5/110-6.1 (West 2022). In order to detain a defendant, the State has the burden to prove by clear

and convincing evidence that (1) the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant

has committed a qualifying offense, (2) the defendant’s pretrial release poses a real and present

threat to the safety of any person or the community or a flight risk, and (3) less restrictive

conditions would not avoid a real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community

and/or prevent the defendant’s willful flight from prosecution. Id. § 110-6.1(e).

¶ 18 In considering whether the defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any

person or the community, i.e., making a determination of “dangerousness,” the trial court may

consider evidence or testimony concerning factors that include, but are not limited to, (1) the nature

and circumstances of any offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence

involving a weapon or a sex offense; (2) the history and characteristics of the defendant; (3) the

identity of any person to whom the defendant is believed to pose a threat and the nature of the

threat; (4) any statements made by or attributed to the defendant, together with the circumstances

7 surrounding the statements; (5) the age and physical condition of the defendant; (6) the age and

physical condition of the victim or complaining witness; (7) whether the defendant is known to

possess or have access to a weapon; (8) whether at the time of the current offense or any other

offense, the defendant was on probation, parole, or supervised release from custody; and (9) any

other factors including those listed in section 110-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963

(Code) (id. § 110-5). Id. § 110-6.1(g).

¶ 19 To set appropriate conditions of pretrial release, the trial court must determine, by clear

and convincing evidence, what pretrial release conditions, “if any, will reasonably ensure the

appearance of a defendant as required or the safety of any other person or the community and the

likelihood of compliance by the defendant with all the conditions of pretrial release.” Id. § 110-

5(a). In reaching its determination, the trial court must consider (1) the nature and circumstances

of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and

characteristics of the person; (4) the nature and seriousness of the specific, real, and present threat

to any person that would be posed by the person’s release; and (5) the nature and seriousness of

the risk of obstructing or attempting to obstruct the criminal justice process. Id. The statute lists

no singular factor as dispositive. See id.

¶ 20 Our standard of review of pretrial release determinations is twofold. The trial court’s

factual findings are reviewed under the manifest weight of the evidence standard. People v. Swan,

2023 IL App (5th) 230766, ¶ 12. “ ‘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.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322, 332 (2008)).

We review the trial court’s ultimate determination regarding the denial of pretrial release for an

abuse of discretion. Id. ¶ 11. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision of the circuit court

8 is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or when no reasonable person would agree with the position

adopted by the trial court.” Id.; see People v. Heineman, 2023 IL 127854, ¶ 59. “[I]n reviewing

the circuit court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion, we will not substitute our judgment for that of

the circuit court, ‘merely because we would have balanced the appropriate factors differently.’ ”

People v. Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253, ¶ 15 (quoting People v. Cox, 82 Ill. 2d 268, 280

(1980)).

¶ 21 A. People v. Alcantara, No. 5-24-0195

¶ 22 Defendant filed his first notice of appeal on February 6, 2024, requesting reversal of the

trial court’s order denying pretrial release. Defendant listed three issues on review: (1) whether the

State failed to meet its burden of proving defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety of

any persons or the community; (2) whether the State failed to meet its burden of proving that no

condition or combination of conditions could mitigate defendant’s dangerousness; and (3) whether

the court erred in determining that no condition, or combination of conditions, would reasonably

ensure defendant’s appearance for later hearing or prevent defendant from being charged with a

subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. On March 6, 2024, defendant’s counsel on appeal, the

Office of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD), filed its notice that it would not be filing a Rule

604(h) memorandum.

¶ 23 The State filed a Rule 604(h) memorandum on March 25, 2024. The State argued that the

trial court’s findings that defendant posed a real and present threat to others or the community and

that there were no conditions of pretrial release that would reasonably ensure the safety of others

or the community were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 24 Defendant first argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and

convincing evidence that defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person or

9 persons or the community. He avers that the State presented virtually no evidence beyond the

charged offense. He opines that nothing was presented regarding defendant’s lack of a criminal

record or lack of history of abuse or harassment of the victim or any other person.

¶ 25 The issue raised is one of the sufficiency of the evidence. Typically, when considering the

sufficiency of the evidence, “the reviewing court must view the evidence ‘in the light most

favorable to the prosecution.’ ” People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274, 280 (2004) (quoting

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). “This means the reviewing court must allow all

reasonable inferences from the record in favor of the prosecution.” Id. In this case, the question

becomes, “ ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any

rational trier of fact could have found’ ” (emphasis in original) (id. at 278 (quoting Jackson, 443

U.S. at 319)) that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that defendant posed a real

and present threat to any person(s) or the community.

¶ 26 As noted above, the statute provides factors for the trial court’s consideration in

determining dangerousness. Included in those factors are the “nature and circumstances of any

offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence, involving a weapon, or a

sex offense.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g)(1) (West 2022). Here, the offense was violent (a stabbing)

and involved a weapon (a knife). Moreover, defendant threatened to harm himself. Based on this

evidence, the trial court’s finding that defendant posed a real and present threat to the victim and

himself was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 27 Defendant’s second argument contends that the State failed to prove that no condition, or

combination of conditions, would mitigate his dangerousness. In support, defendant argues that

the State presented no evidence that he had a history of domestic violence or harassment or a

10 history of violating court orders. He further argues that defendant expressed a willingness to

comply with any conditions of release. This issue also involves the sufficiency of the evidence.

¶ 28 Again, we disagree with defendant’s argument. Although the State did not present evidence

of a history of domestic violence or harassment or a history of violating court orders, it did present

evidence that defendant was mentally unstable and had no stable residence apart from that of the

victim to which he could return should he be released. Based on this evidence, the trial court’s

finding that no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate his dangerousness was not

against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we cannot find that the trial court’s

reliance on the State’s proffer to conclude that no condition of pretrial release would mitigate

defendant’s dangerousness was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 29 Defendant’s last argument contends that the trial court erred in its determination that no

condition or combination of conditions would reasonably ensure the appearance of defendant for

later hearings or prevent defendant from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A

misdemeanor. However, this issue is only relevant in instances where previously issued pretrial

release conditions are revoked. See id. § 110-6(a). Our review of this record confirms the trial

court’s order did not include revocation of any previously issued pretrial release condition.

Accordingly, this issue has no merit.

¶ 30 None of the trial court’s findings relating to dangerousness or the lack of condition, or

combination of conditions, available to mitigate defendant’s dangerousness, were against the

manifest weight of the evidence. As such, we hold that the trial court’s ultimate disposition,

denying pretrial release, was not an abuse of discretion.

11 ¶ 31 B. People v. Alcantara, No. 5-24-0294

¶ 32 Regarding the second appeal, we first address the standard of review for proceedings

addressing continued detention after the initial pretrial detention hearing. The State argues that the

proper standard of review for reviewing a trial court’s order of continued detention under section

110-6.1(i-5) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(i-5) (West 2022)) is the abuse of discretion standard.

In support of its argument, it cites People v. Long, 2023 IL App (5th) 230881, ¶ 16. Defendant

argues the proper standard of review is the manifest weight of the evidence standard.

¶ 33 This appellate district has repeatedly employed a twofold standard of review of pretrial

detention determinations. People v. Forthenberry, 2024 IL App (5th) 231002, ¶¶ 33-34; People v.

Burke, 2024 IL App (5th) 231167, ¶ 20. Under this twofold standard, we review the court’s factual

findings under the manifest weight of the evidence standard and the ultimate denial of pretrial

release for an abuse of discretion. Forthenberry, 2024 IL App (5th) 231002, ¶¶ 33-34; Burke, 2024

IL App (5th) 231167, ¶ 20. While the court is not required to make the same findings as the initial

detention order for subsequent pretrial detention determinations, section 110-6.1(i-5) requires the

court to “find that continued detention is necessary to 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, or

to prevent the defendant’s willful flight from prosecution.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(i-5) (West 2022).

Long departs from this district’s caselaw and utilized only an abused discretion standard of review,

citing to the Fourth District case People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 10. Without

convincing argument to abandon our twofold standard of review, we continue to follow this

district’s caselaw and review for the trial court’s factual findings against the manifest weight of

the evidence.

12 ¶ 34 Proceedings that occur after the court has issued a pretrial detention order under section

110-6.1(a) and (h) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a), (h) (West 2022)) are addressed in section

110-6.1(i-5). At this stage, the trial court is not obligated to make the same findings. People v.

Hongo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232482, ¶ 27. Rather, “the court must find ‘that continued detention is

necessary to 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, or to prevent the defendant’s willful flight from

prosecution.’ ” Id. (quoting 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(i-5) (West 2022)).

¶ 35 Defendant filed his second notice of appeal on February 26, 2024, requesting reversal of

the court’s order continuing the denial of his pretrial release and remand for a hearing on conditions

of release. Defendant listed two issues for review: (1) whether the State failed to meet its burden

of proving that no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the threat posed by

defendant or his willful flight; and (2) whether the court erred in determining that no condition, or

combination of conditions, would reasonably ensure defendant’s appearance for later hearing or

prevent defendant from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. OSAD

filed a Rule 604(h) memorandum on March 25, 2024. In it, OSAD argued that conditions existed

that would mitigate any risk posed by defendant’s release and the court erred when it found no

conditions or combination of conditions would be sufficient.

¶ 36 In Forthenberry, this court held that when a supporting Rule 604(h) memorandum is filed,

it becomes “the controlling document for issues or claims on appeal” and the notice of appeal

would not be used to “seek out further arguments not raised in the memorandum” unless

jurisdiction was raised as an issue. Forthenberry, 2024 IL App (5th) 231002, ¶ 42. Other appellate

districts have also adopted this holding. See People v. Rollins, 2024 IL App (2d) 230372, ¶ 22;

13 People v. Martin, 2024 IL App (4th) 231512-U, ¶ 59. Therefore, we will rely solely on OSAD’s

memorandum for defendant’s argument.

¶ 37 OSAD argues that at the first hearing, Judge Watson indicated that she “may consider GPS

home monitoring” if defendant demonstrated his mental health had stabilized and he had a stable

residence separate from the victim. It avers that defendant exceeded meeting those requirements.

OSAD argues that at the detention review hearing, defense counsel proffered that the jail

administrator reported that defendant’s mental health was stabilized after defendant met with

mental health providers and substance abuse specialists. It further argues that defendant’s sister

was present at the hearing and that counsel proffered that defendant could live with the sister and

her husband in Cicero, Illinois, which was located about 2½ hours from Douglas County, they

would guarantee defendant’s attendance at court hearings, and they would help defendant comply

with GPS monitoring should it be required. OSAD further argues that counsel stressed defendant

had no criminal history, was never the subject of an order of protection, and there were no

allegations of ongoing abuse in his relationship with the victim.

¶ 38 OSAD also argues that the State presented no evidence and no specific argument regarding

conditions of release, and referred to conditions only to ask that a no-contact order be imposed

should defendant be released. It avers that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing

evidence that no conditions could mitigate any risk defendant posed to the victim.

¶ 39 OSAD further argues that Judge Beckett’s findings did not support a conclusion that no

conditions could mitigate any risk. It avers that while the court acknowledged that defendant did

exactly what Judge Watson proposed at the previous hearing—he presented evidence of his mental

stability and a guarantee of housing separate from the victim—it found that it needed a more

detailed understanding of defendant’s mental state as well as information from a professional about

14 whether defendant would remain sober and free from activities that led to his charged offenses.

OSAD argues that if the court was concerned about continued alcohol use by defendant, it could

have ordered secure continuous remote alcohol monitoring (SCRAM) which alerts authorities if

alcohol is detected in the wearer’s sweat.

¶ 40 OSAD argues whether the victim feared for her safety and her life should defendant be

released does not show that there are no conditions to mitigate any risk he posed. It further argues

that, as the State acknowledged in the charging document, defendant was “acting under a sudden

and intense passion resulting from a serious provocation,” and therefore it follows that without

provocation there would be no further offenses.

¶ 41 OSAD also takes issue with the court’s finding that it did not have sufficient information

about defendant’s proposed placement with his sister and that it was concerned that the residence

was “some distance” from Douglas County. It argues the court’s concern was “illogical.” OSAD

avers that the distance may have been a concern if defendant were alleged to be a flight risk, but

that allegation was never made. It opines that, “In fact, a residence two and half hours away from

[the victim] would be an excellent way to mitigate any risk, particularly with GPS monitoring.”

¶ 42 The State argues that the court’s finding that defendant’s continued detention was

necessary to avoid a real and present threat to the safety of the victim was not an abuse of

discretion. It avers Judge Beckett considered the prior findings of Judge Watson from the initial

detention hearing which included defendant not having a stable residence, his alcohol and

substance abuse issues, defendant stabbing the victim with a knife resulting in bodily harm, and

defendant’s threats to kill himself. The State further argues the court considered that the victim

feared for her safety and her life should defendant be released. The State avers that after

considering the articulable facts of the case, the court’s finding that defendant continued to pose a

15 real and present threat to the victim was “entirely reasonable” as was its requirement for more

detailed information.

¶ 43 Here, Judge Beckett reviewed the initial detention order and acknowledged Judge

Watson’s earlier concerns. Also, the State again proffered the seriousness of the offense, the bodily

harm inflicted, and the victim’s fear of defendant. While it appears defendant’s mental stability

improved in the eight days between the hearings, there was no professional opinion that defendant

was no longer a threat. We cannot say that Judge Beckett’s finding that he simply did not have

enough information to determine that defendant was no longer a threat such that pretrial conditions

could be effective was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Although the court’s initial

concern regarding defendant’s residence may have been resolved by defendant staying with his

sister, we cannot find that the alternative residence disposes of the continuing issues related to

defendant’s mental health. As such, we cannot find that the trial court’s findings were against the

manifest weight of the evidence or that its disposition continuing the denial of pretrial release was

an abuse of discretion.

¶ 44 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 45 For the reasons stated herein, the trial court’s findings in its initial order denying

defendant’s pretrial release were not against the manifest weight of the evidence and its disposition

detaining defendant was not an abuse of discretion. Likewise, the trial court’s findings in its order

continuing defendant’s detention were not against the manifest weight of the evidence and its

disposition continuing detention was not an abuse of discretion. Therefore, we affirm both of the

trial court’s orders.

¶ 46 Affirmed.