People v. Barnes

2024 IL App (1st) 240475-U

Opinion

2024 IL App (1st) 240475-U FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION May 20, 2024

No. 1-24-0475B

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). _____________________________________________________________________________

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT _____________________________________________________________________________

) Appeal from the THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County, Illinois. Plaintiff-Appellee, ) v. ) No. 07 CR 22861 ) ROBERT BARNES, ) Honorable ) Thomas Byrne, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding. _____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE COGHLAN delivered the judgment of the court. Justice Pucinski concurred in the judgment. Presiding Justice Fitzgerald Smith specially concurred.

ORDER

¶1 Held: We reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct further proceedings in compliance with Section 110-6.1(h)(1) of the Pretrial Fairness Act.

¶2 Defendant Robert Barnes appeals from the trial court’s February 9, 2024, order continuing

his pretrial detention pursuant to article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) as

recently amended by Public Acts 101-652, § 10-255 and 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023) (725

ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1), (6) (West 2022)), and commonly referred to as “the Safety, Accountability,

Fairness and Equity-Today (SAFE-T) Act” or the “Pretrial Fairness Act” (Act). See also Ill. S. Ct. No. 1-24-0475B

R. 604(h) (eff. Oct. 19, 2023); Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 52 (lifting stay and setting

effective date as September 18, 2023). For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for

further proceedings.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 This appeal stems from the September 25, 2007, shooting of the victim Regis McWright

in front of defendant’s home at 1424 North Laramie Avenue in Chicago. Following a jury trial,

defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 45 years’ imprisonment. On

direct appeal, the appellate court rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in refusing

to instruct the jury on defense of one’s dwelling as a justification for the use of deadly force

because no evidence showed that an entry occurred. See People v. Barnes, No. 1-09-1535 (2010)

(unpublished under Supreme Court Rule 23).

¶5 During the subsequent postconviction proceedings, defendant argued that his trial counsel

was ineffective for failing to request that the jury be instructed on the justified use of deadly force

to prevent a felony within his dwelling (720 ILCS 5/7-2(a)(2), 9-2(a)(2), (c) (West 2006)), and that

appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue on direct appeal. See People v.

Barnes, 2013 IL App (1st) 120057-U. Two years ago, another division of this court reversed the

circuit court’s third-stage dismissal of defendant’s postconviction petition and remanded the matter

for a new trial. People v. Barnes, 2022 IL App (1st) 191100-U, ¶ 40. In doing so, the reviewing

court concluded that appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by not arguing that the trial

court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on the justified use of deadly force to

prevent a felony in defendant’s dwelling. Id.

¶6 The court noted that, among other things, evidence at trial showed that at the time of the

shooting, defendant lived in an apartment with his girlfriend and their two young children. Id.

-2- No. 1-24-0475B

Defendant’s girlfriend testified that prior to the incident she had her brother change the locks on

the apartment because she feared that someone had been inside on several occasions and had

moved their belongings around. Id. Defendant’s daughter testified that on the night of the shooting,

she heard the front door creak as if someone were “messing” with it. Id. Defendant testified that

“he suspected someone had picked the locks, the front door was ajar, McWright stood in front of

it holding something, and [defendant] was fearful.” Id.

¶7 In addition, at trial, firefighter “Dennis Scates testified that he responded to the shooting,

and McWright stated that he ‘went to work on a hot water heater, and [defendant] came down and

said, I’m tired of this s***, and he shot me.’ ” Barnes, 2022 IL App (1st) 191100-U, ¶ 6. On cross-

examination, “Scates further testified that McWright stated he went to fix defendant’s hot water

heater, ‘went to the door,’ and defendant ‘came out and shot him.’ ” Id. As this court noted on

direct appeal, “McWright’s statement to Scates does not unequivocally place the shooting at the

doorway to defendant’s apartment. When McWright said defendant ‘came out and shot him,’ he

could have meant that defendant came out of the two-flat to shoot him on the porch.” Barnes, No.

1-09-1535, slip order at 13. McWright told police officers at the scene that defendant “ran inside”

after shooting him. People v. Barnes, 2022 IL App (1st) 191100-U, ¶ 7. Several witnesses testified

that they were across the street from the apartment building and “saw defendant shoot McWright

on the porch at point-blank range” then turn and go inside as McWright fell against the porch

railing. Id. ¶ 5. Police officers found blood on the front porch, but not inside the apartment building.

Id. ¶ 8.

¶8 After finding that the conflicting evidence was sufficient to warrant an instruction on the

defense of defendant’s dwelling, the reviewing court held that the trial court’s error in failing to

instruct the jury on this defense amounted to second prong plain error because it severely

-3- No. 1-24-0475B

threatened the fairness of defendant’s trial. Id. ¶ 48. The court held that the jury was not “fairly,

fully and comprehensively” apprised of the relevant legal principles regarding the sole contested

issue at trial (id. ¶ 48) and that it was therefore unaware that it “should (1) acquit defendant if the

State failed to prove that his conduct was unjustified to prevent the commission of a felony within

his dwelling, or (2) find defendant guilty of second degree murder if he unreasonably believed that

shooting McWright was necessary to prevent a felony within his dwelling.” Id. ¶ 51.

¶9 The reviewing court ultimately found that appellate counsel was unreasonable for failing

to raise this issue on direct appeal and reversed and remanded the matter to the circuit court for a

new trial. Id. ¶ 61. Since that remand, defendant has been detained in Cook County jail awaiting

retrial.

¶ 10 On November 14, 2023, defendant filed the instant petition for pretrial release pursuant to

section 110-7.5 of the Pretrial Fairness Act (725 ILCS 5/110-7.5 (West 2022)). In response, the

State filed a verified petition requesting denial of pretrial release pursuant to sections 110-2, and

110-6.1(a)(1.5) of the Act (725 ILCS 5/110-2, 110-6.1(a)(1.5) (West 2022)).

¶ 11 The circuit court held a hearing on the two petitions on February 9, 2024. At that hearing,

the State argued that the proof was evident and the presumption great that defendant committed

the detainable offense of first-degree murder and that he posed a real and present threat to the

safety of the community as well as a flight risk from prosecution. The State proffered that in

September 2007, both defendant and McWright lived in the two-flat building located at 1424 North

Larmie Avenue in Chicago. McWright, who was the building’s maintenance man, lived on the

first floor, while defendant, his girlfriend, and their children lived on the second floor. The building

had a common entrance for all occupants. At approximately 8:30 p.m. on September 25, 2007,

three witnesses standing at 1419 North Laramie Avenue heard a single gunshot from across the

-4- No. 1-24-0475B

street. Two of those witnesses looked across and observed the victim and defendant on the porch

area in front of 1424 North Laramie. Following the gunshot, defendant was observed placing

something into his waist area and heading towards the building entrance, while the victim bent

over holding his stomach and then crossed the street to the three witnesses. At the scene, McWright

told multiple witnesses that defendant had shot him and ran inside the building, and that defendant

lived on the second floor. The police entered the building using McWright’s keys, made their way

to the second floor, and forcefully entered defendant’s apartment. Nobody was inside, but a .357

revolver was recovered in the front bedroom.

¶ 12 McWright was taken to the hospital and died the next day. An autopsy determined that

McWright died from a single gunshot wound and that the manner of death was homicide.

¶ 13 Between September 26, and October 2, the police unsuccessfully searched for defendant at

his “known addresses,” including his mother’s house. Officers learned that defendant “now had

his mother’s cell phone and her vehicle.” Defendant eventually arranged to turn himself over to

the police on October 1, 2007, but failed to appear that day. Instead, he turned himself over to the

police the following day, October 2, 2007.

¶ 14 Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver in

1999.

¶ 15 The State noted that during defendant’s original trial, he admitted that he had shot and

killed the victim and that the gun he used was obtained illegally since he was not permitted to own

one as a convicted felon. The State argued that defendant should be detained pretrial because he

posed a real and present threat to the safety of the community and was a flight risk. The State also

argued that “no condition or combination of conditions” could “mitigate the risk of releasing this

defendant.”

-5- No. 1-24-0475B

¶ 16 In mitigation, defense counsel argued that the defense and the State had “dramatically

opposed positions” regarding the events on the night of the shooting. According to defense

counsel, at the original trial, defendant and his witnesses testified that their apartment had been

broken into multiple times, that they had changed the locks on their front door, and that the only

reason that defendant obtained the firearm was “to protect his family.” These witnesses further

testified that on the night of the shooting, defendant returned to his apartment with his children

when “all of a sudden” one of the children heard a sound. Defendant claimed that he saw the front

door of the apartment opening and, fearing that someone was invading the apartment with his

children inside, fired a shot. Defense counsel argued that defendant’s version of events was “more

plausible than the State’s” and the State failed to offer any motive as to why defendant would want

to shoot the victim.

¶ 17 Defense counsel pointed out that the appellate court had recently reversed and remanded

defendant’s case for a new trial and argued that defendant was presently presumed innocent and

there a presumption that he should be released pretrial. Defense counsel further argued that the

State had not presented a “scintilla of evidence” that defendant was a flight risk or posed any real

or present threat to anyone in the community. Defense counsel argued that the instant charge

involved “a very unusual scenario,” that defendant’s only prior conviction was for a drug-related

offense, and the State did not present evidence that defendant had ever threatened anyone or that

he posed a danger to the community.

¶ 18 Moreover, defense counsel asserted that defendant had been a “model prisoner” for the last

16 years and had completed numerous certificates and courses while incarcerated, including the

“Second Chance” behavioral modification program. Defense counsel stated that defendant’s entire

-6- No. 1-24-0475B

family resides in Chicago, and he would live with his sister if released. Defense counsel asked the

circuit court to impose “the least restrictive means in order to release [defendant] from custody.”

¶ 19 At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court found that the State met its burden in

proving by clear and convincing evidence that defendant committed first degree murder and that

he posed a real and present threat to the safety of the community. In doing so, the court noted that

it was familiar with the two versions of events presented at defendant’s original trial because it

had presided over defendant’s postconviction proceedings. The court recalled that “there w[ere]

transcripts” that it had reviewed “indicating this defendant’s frustration” with McWright. The court

also found that the State’s proffer established that defendant was a convicted felon, who illegally

armed himself and shot the victim on his front porch and therefore posed a clear and present threat

to the community. The court added that based on defendant’s “willingness to arm himself,

frustrated or met with a neighbor known to him, and to shoot that individual who was unarmed at

the time,” there were no “less restrictive conditions that could be imposed that would protect the

safety of the community.”

¶ 20 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 21 Defendant argues that the State failed to prove 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.”

¶ 22 Pursuant to article 110 of the Code, as amended, “[a]ll defendants shall be presumed

eligible for pretrial release” and pretrial release may only be denied in certain statutorily limited

situations. 725 ILCS 5/110-2(a), 110-6.1(e) (West 2022). After filing a timely verified petition

requesting denial of pretrial release, the State has the burden to prove by clear and convincing

evidence that: the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant has committed a

-7- No. 1-24-0475B

qualifying offense; defendant’s pretrial release poses a real and present threat to the safety of any

person or the community or that defendant is a flight risk; and that less restrictive conditions would

not mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community and/or prevent

the defendant’s willful flight from prosecution. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e), (f) (West 2022).

¶ 23 The State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that “no condition

or combination of conditions” contained within section 110-10(b) of the Code could mitigate “the

real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community *** [or] the

defendant’s willful flight.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e) (West 2022). If a defendant is detained, at each

subsequent pretrial hearing, “the judge must find that the continued detention is necessary to avoid

a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons of 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).

¶ 24 We review the trial court’s ultimate determination regarding pretrial release for an abuse

of discretion (People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 10 (citing People v. Simmons, 2019

IL App (1st) 191253, ¶ 9)), while we review the trial court’s factual findings under the manifest

weight of the evidence standard (People v. Rodriguez, 2023 IL App (3d) 230450, ¶ 8).1 See also

People v. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. An abuse of discretion occurs only when the

court’s judgment is fanciful, arbitrary, or unreasonable, or when no reasonable person would agree

with the court’s position. Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253, ¶ 9. “A finding is against the

manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or the finding

1 There has been considerable disagreement regarding which standard of review applies to pretrial detention orders. See, e.g., People v. Whitmore, 2023 IL App (1st) 231807, ¶ 18 (applying only an abuse of discretion standard); People v. Pitts, 2024 IL App (1st) 232336, ¶ 29 (applying exclusively a manifest weight standard); People v. Sorrentino, 2024 IL App (1st) 232363, ¶ 34 (reviewing the denial of pretrial release de novo, but findings of historical fact for manifest error). Our conclusion would be the same under any of these standards. -8- No. 1-24-0475B

itself is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented.” People v. Deleon, 227

Ill. 2d 322, 332 (2008).

¶ 25 Section 110-10(a) establishes a number of mandatory conditions that must be imposed for

defendants released prior to trial. 725 ILCS 5/110-10(a) (West 2022). Section 110-10(b) provides

a number of discretionary conditions that the trial court may impose, which include but are not

limited to (1) restrictions on leaving Illinois without leave of court, (2) prohibitions on possessing

firearms or other dangerous weapons, and (3) prohibitions on communicating with particular

persons or classes of persons. 725 ILCS 5/110-10(b)(0.05), (2), (3) (West 2022). Section 110-10(b)

also authorizes the trial court to impose “[s]uch other reasonable conditions” if those conditions

are individualized and the least restrictive means possible to ensure defendant’s appearance in

court and compliance with pretrial release rules, court procedures, and criminal statutes. 725 ILCS

5/110-10(b)(9) (West 2022).

¶ 26 We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to deny pretrial release in this

case. The State’s proffer established that defendant, a convicted felon, shot and killed Regis

McWright with an illegally obtained firearm. McWright had lived in the same apartment building

as defendant for five years and served as the building’s maintenance man. After shooting

McWright, defendant fled the scene. He did not call 911. McWright “died that night from the

gunshot wound” inflicted by the defendant, who “turned himself in to police five days later.”

Barnes, 2013 IL App (1st) 120057-U ¶¶ 4, 7.

Courts may consider “the nature and circumstances of the offense charged” and “the history

and characteristics of the defendant” in determining whether the State established by clear and

convincing evidence that no combination of conditions of release could mitigate defendant’s threat

to the community or prospect of willful flight from prosecution. 725 ILCS 5/110-5(a)(1), (3) (West

-9- No. 1-24-0475B

2022). Defendant, as a convicted felon, is explicitly prohibited from possessing a firearm by virtue

of his status as a convicted felon. People v. Davis, 2023 IL App (1st) 231856, ¶ 28. Defendant’s

possession of a firearm “goes directly against the legislature’s stated purpose of promoting and

protecting the safety of the public from the unlawful possession of firearms by certain individuals.”

Id.

Another factor trial courts may consider is “the nature and seriousness of the risk of

obstructing or attempting to obstruct the criminal justice process that would be posed by the

defendant’s release.” 725 ILCS 5/110-5(a)(5). As noted herein, police officers attempted, without

success, to locate defendant between September 26, 2007, and October 2, 2007, including

surveilling defendant’s known addresses. After arranging to turn himself in on October 1, 2007,

defendant failed to do show up until the next day. This behavior demonstrates that defendant poses

a risk of flight from prosecution, conduct which would potentially obstruct the criminal justice

process.

¶ 27 We are not convinced by defendant’s reliance on People v. Stock, 2023 IL App (1st)

231753. In this case, the trial court was presented with more than just “the bare allegations that

defendant has committed a violent offense” found to be insufficient in Stock. Id. ¶ 18. Unlike in

Stock, the State “explicitly offered evidence of the defendant’s inability to conform his behavior

to legal requisites which would be necessary for his compliance with any conditions of release set

by the court.” People v. Brame, 2024 IL App (1st) 240363-U, ¶ 52. The record in this case

establishes that the trial court considered the nature of the allegations along with the circumstances

surrounding defendant’s arrest and his prior behavior before denying pretrial release.

¶ 28 Defendant also asserts that the trial court did not make the statutorily required “written

finding summarizing the court's reasons for concluding that the defendant should be denied pretrial

- 10 - No. 1-24-0475B

release, including why less restrictive conditions would not avoid a real and present threat.” 725

ILCS 110-6.1(h)(1) (West 2022). This is borne out by the record. In space provided on the form

order to describe why no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the real and present

threat, the court wrote only that “[Defendant] armed himself w[ith] a handgun shot an unarmed

victim and fled the scene. [Defendant] was a convicted felon.” Yet defendant has cited no authority

showing that the remedy for this particular violation must be his “release under the least restrictive

conditions.”

¶ 29 In Stock, the trial court ordered the defendant to be detained. Stock, 2023 IL App (1st)

231753, ¶ 17. In the space provided on the form order to describe why no condition or combination

of conditions could mitigate the real and present threat, the court wrote only that “ ‘The defendant

shot a firearm at the complaining witness.’ ” Id. ¶ 8. The reviewing court found that the trial court's

written order did not meet the statutory requirement of an explanation of why less restrictive

conditions would not avoid a real and present threat. Id. ¶ 20 (citing 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1)). It

is important to note that in Stock, unlike in this case, the defendant had no other criminal history

and was otherwise a “law-abiding member of the community.” Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753,

¶ 19.

¶ 30 Having already determined that evidence was insufficient to show no conditions of release

were available, the reviewing court, as a remedy, reversed and remanded, directing the trial court

to “enter an order consistent with this opinion with the caveat that we express no opinion about

what conditions of pretrial release should or should not be imposed upon defendant and leave that

to the discretion of the trial court.” Id. ¶ 22.

¶ 31 We find the record in this case amply supports the determination that anything less than

detention would not avoid a real and present threat to the community or flight from prosecution.

- 11 - No. 1-24-0475B

The trial court failed to make a sufficient “written finding summarizing [its] reasons for concluding

that the defendant should be denied pretrial release, including why less restrictive conditions would

not avoid a real and present threat.” (Emphasis added.) 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1). However, “the

Act’s purpose of protecting the public would be undermined by holding that this error alone

compelled defendant's release.” See People v. Parker, 2024 IL App (1st) 232275-U, ¶ 50 (citing

People v. Andino-Acosta, 2024 IL App (2d) 230463, ¶ 17). We reverse and remand solely for the

trial court to comply with section 110-6.1(h)(1). While “nothing precludes the court from

reevaluating whether release is appropriate, the record here does not compel that finding.” Id.

¶ 32 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 33 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with

this order.

¶ 34 Reversed and remanded.

¶ 35 PRESIDING JUSTICE FITZGERALD SMITH, specially concurring:

¶ 36 I concur with the decision of the majority to reverse the detention order and remand this

matter to the circuit court, with directions for the circuit court to enter an order articulating why

no restrictions other than pretrial detention would mitigate the defendant’s purported threat to the

community.

¶ 37 I write separately because I believe that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing

evidence that no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the threat the defendant

posed to the safety of the community (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e) (3) (West 2022)), and that this issue

should therefore be reevaluated by the circuit court on remand.

¶ 38 At the outset, I disagree with the standard of review used by the majority and would instead

apply an abuse of discretion standard across the board. People v. Whitmore, 2023 IL App (1st)

- 12 - No. 1-24-0475B

231807(B), ¶¶ 18-19; People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11. Nonetheless, regardless

of the standard, my conclusion remains the same.

¶ 39 In my view, this case poses a very unique scenario.

¶ 40 The defendant was convicted of murder 16 years ago. Because at his original trial the

defendant admitted to obtaining an illegal weapon to protect his family and to shooting the victim

at point-blank range, the sole contested issue at trial was whether his actions were justified. The

defendant’s conviction has since been reversed and the case has been remanded for a new trial

because this appellate court found that the jury in the original trial was not properly instructed on

justification. As such, the defendant currently stands innocent of any crime.

¶ 41 The record further reveals that aside from the instant charges, the defendant’s prior criminal

background includes only one non-violent drug-related offense, committed in 1999, eight years

prior to the instant offense.

¶ 42 What is more, after he voluntarily turned himself over to the police in 2007, and was

originally charged, the defendant was permitted to remain free on bond, presumably because the

circuit court believed that he was neither a flight risk, nor posed any threat to anyone in the

community. The circuit court’s faith in the defendant bore out, as during his original trial he

appeared at every court hearing.

¶ 43 Even after incarceration, the defendant proved to be a model citizen, earning over 200

certificates only in the last two years.

¶ 44 Accordingly, aside from the simple fact that he spent the last 16 years of his life in prison,

serving a sentence for a conviction that has since been overturned, the defendant stands in no

different position than he did prior to his original trial, during which he was released on bond.

- 13 - No. 1-24-0475B

¶ 45 Nonetheless, at the detention hearing, the State offered no evidence or explanation

whatsoever as to why, at this moment in time, no conditions could alleviate the defendant’s

purported threat to the community so as to permit his pretrial release, just like it could not 16 years

ago. Instead, in its petition, the State merely checked off the box next to the preprinted rubric

stating that “no condition or combination of conditions set forth in 725 ILCS 5/110-10(5) can

mitigate that risk.” Similarly, at the hearing, the State offered no evidence regarding the

impracticability of any less restrictive conditions. Instead, the State’s proffer focused solely on the

defendant’s commission of the detainable offense and the element of his clear and present danger

to the community. Specifically, the State detailed the uncontested facts from the defendant’s

original trial to argue that he posed a clear and present threat to the community i.e., that he fled the

scene after he shot and killed the unarmed victim with the gun he obtained illegally as a prior

convicted felon. At the end of this argument, almost as an afterthought, the State merely parroted

the bare allegation of its petition, that it was its “position that no condition or combination of

conditions” could “mitigate the risk of releasing this defendant.”

¶ 46 While I agree that the State was not required to address every single potential condition for

release detailed in section 110-10 of the Act (725 ILCS 5/110-10 (West 2022)) at a minimum it

was required to present some discussion, reasoning and/or evidence as to why specific alternative

conditions would not work at this time for this particular defendant. See e.g., People v. White, 2024

IL App (1st) 232245; People v. Turner, 2024 IL App (1st) 232082-U, ¶ 21; People v. Martin, 2023

IL App (4th) 230826, ¶ 23; People v. Castillo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232315, ¶ 32. This is especially

true here, where the underlying facts of the case remain uncontested. If it were otherwise and “the

base allegations that make up the sine qua non of a violent offense were sufficient on their own to

establish” that no conditions could mitigate the threat posed, instead of creating a presumption of

- 14 - No. 1-24-0475B

entitlement to pretrial release, “the legislature would have simply deemed those accused of violent

offense ineligible for release.” People v. Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶ 18.

¶ 47 Under the unique set of circumstances presented here, I believe that the State’s proffer fell

short of the clear and convincing burden mandated by the statute. In Re Tiffany W., 2012 IL App

(1st) 102492-B, ¶ 12 (“Clear and convincing evidence” is “that quantum of proof that leaves no

reasonable doubt in the mind of the fact finder about the truth of the proposition in question.” It

“is more than a preponderance but less than is required to convict an individual of a criminal

offense.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.))

¶ 48 Correspondingly, I believe that the circuit court’s findings, which were premised solely on

the State’s recitation of the uncontested facts from the original trial, were arbitrary and

unreasonable, and constitute an abuse of discretion. See People v. Whitmore, 2023 IL App (1st)

231807(B), ¶¶ 18-19; People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11; In re Marriage of Heroy,

2017 IL 120205, ¶ 24 (quoting Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21, 36 (2009)) (An abuse of discretion

occurs when the circuit court’s “ ‘ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or where no reasonable

person would take the view adopted by the circuit court.’ ”); see also People v. Vance, 2024 IL

App (1st) 232503, ¶ 27 (“Dangerousness and conditions are different factors and deserve separate

consideration. [Citations.] We cannot emphasize enough here, as we have in the other cited cases,

that merely reciting the threat that the defendant poses is not enough, by itself, to demonstrate why

no set of conditions would suffice to mitigate that threat. Trial courts must address those factors

separately on pain of reversal if they do not.”)

¶ 49 As such, I would urge the circuit court on remand to reevaluate whether the State has

presented sufficient evidence to establish that no condition or combination of conditions could

mitigate the defendant’s ostensible threat to the safety of the community.

- 15 -