People v. Castillo

2024 IL App (1st) 232315

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: February 7, 2024
• Docket: 1-23-2315
• Status: Published

Opinion

2024 IL App (1st) 232315 SIXTH DIVISION

February 7, 2024

No. 1-23-2315B ______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Cook County. Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) No. 2023CR05346 VERONICA CASTILLO ) ) Honorable Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Margaret M. Ogarek ) Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE C.A. WALKER delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Oden Johnson and Justice Hyman concurred in the judgment.

OPINION

¶1 Defendant Veronica Castillo appeals the circuit court’s order continuing her pretrial

detention pursuant to article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, as amended by Public

Act 101-652, § 10-255, and Public Act 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan 1, 2023) (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1)

(West 2022) (commonly referred to as the “Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today

Act” or “SAFE-T Act”) (“the Act”). On appeal, she argues that the State failed to demonstrate No. 1-23-2315B

through clear and convincing evidence that: (1) no condition or combination of conditions could

protect the community from any real and present threat posed by her release, and (2) there were

no conditions of release that would reasonably ensure her appearance. For the following reasons,

we reverse and remand for new proceedings, at which the circuit court shall determine whether

Castillo should remain detained based on the specific, articulable facts of the case.

¶2 BACKGROUND

¶3 Castillo was arrested on April 15, 2023, and charged with one count each of home invasion

(720 ILCS 5/19-6(a)(2)) (West 2022)), battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3(a)(1) (West 2022)), and child

endangerment (720 ILCS 5/12C-5(a)(1) (West 2022)). The State amended their charges, replacing

the battery charge with criminal damage to property (720 ILCS 5/21-1(a)(1) (West 2022)). The

circuit court initially denied Castillo bail on April 16, 2023. Following enactment of the Act on

September 18, 2023, counsel for Castillo filed a petition to grant pretrial release on November 15,

2023. The State then filed a petition for a pretrial detention hearing on November 29, 2023. The

circuit court held a hearing on both petitions on December 6, 2023.

¶4 Counsel for Castillo proffered that she is a lifelong resident of Cook County who graduated

high school and received a nursing assistant certificate from Job Corps. Castillo has three children,

one with developmental delays, and all are currently in her mother’s care since she has been

detained. While in detainment, Castillo has participated in numerous programs to make positive

changes to herself, including group therapy, substance abuse treatment, and parenting classes.

Counsel noted that Castillo secured in-patient treatment at the Haymarket Treatment Center

(Haymarket), and upon release, Castillo would transfer to Haymarket to continue treatment.

Counsel suggested that Castillo be placed under electronic home monitoring (EHM) at Haymarket,

with no movement from that location until her bond is addressed or her treatment at Haymarket is

2 No. 1-23-2315B

complete. Should treatment go well at Haymarket, counsel suggested releasing Castillo to her

mother’s home. Counsel stated that Castillo understands that she is not to contact the victims of

the April 15, 2023, incident, and that she only seeks the opportunity to continue improving herself

while being able to spend more time with her children.

¶5 The State proffered that around 6:30 a.m. on April 15, 2023, Castillo, along with two male

co-defendants, went to the home of Herman Lopez to drop off their shared child. At the time,

Lopez was sleeping with his current girlfriend, Olga Gelacio, when they heard loud knocking at

the front door. When Lopez opened the door, Castillo began yelling at him. Lopez then closed the

door yet opened it later to get his child from her. Upon reopening the door, Castillo saw Gelacio,

ran into the home, and lunged at her. The other co-defendants then entered the home and attacked

the victims. Lopez chased the co-defendants out of the home with a knife, restrained Castillo, and

told Gelacio to call 911.

¶6 As Gelacio called 911, the co-defendants picked up bricks and threw them into the home’s

windows. The co-defendants then kicked down the front door and re-entered the home. Lopez

chased away the defendants, who fled in a green Buick. When officers stopped the Buick, the

victims identified the defendants as the attackers. Police then arrested the defendants. At the stop,

officers noticed Castillo’s son in the back seat.

¶7 Regarding Castillo’s background, the State proffered that while Castillo had no prior

convictions, she was arrested twice for domestic battery against Lopez. Counsel for Castillo noted

the State dropped both domestic battery charges. In addition, counsel for Castillo noted that she

had prior orders of protection against Lopez before those arrests. Counsel for Castillo also noted

that pretrial services gave her a score of one and one for new criminal activity and failure to appear,

respectively.

3 No. 1-23-2315B

¶8 The circuit court granted the State’s petition for pretrial detention, finding that the State

established via clear and convincing evidence that Castillo committed a forcible felony in home

invasion, that she presented a real and present danger to the victims, and that there were no

conditions or combination of conditions that would mitigate that danger or Castillo’s willful flight.

The court stated that “the current condition, which is detention, is necessary to ensure the

appearance of the defendant and the safety of the persons involved in the case, specifically [the

victims].” The court continued, “[the court finds that Castillo] poses a real and present threat to

the safety of [the victims] and no combination of conditions, including [EHM] at Haymarket and

ultimately to her mother’s address, will provide for their safety.”

¶9 In the order denying pretrial release, the judge stated that less restrictive conditions would

not avoid a real and present danger to the safety of any person or persons or the community because

(1) the victims initially closed the door on Castillo, but she barged in and escalated the event; (2)

Castillo has two prior domestic battery arrests upon Lopez, and that they share a child; and (3) on

the date of the incident, despite the presence of a minor, Castillo attacked the victims. Furthermore,

the judge stated that no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate Castillo’s willful flight

because she fled the location of attack and was apprehended by police.

¶ 10 On December 8, 2023, Castillo filed her notice of appeal, and checked a box stating that 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 to the safety of any person or

persons or the community, based on the specific, articulable facts of the case, or defendant’s willful

flight. Castillo claimed that the State did not make any arguments that there are no conditions that

could mitigate the real and present threat and that counsel for Castillo presented an alternative in

EHM that would prohibit her from leaving Haymarket’s facility. In addition, Castillo checked a

4 No. 1-23-2315B

box stating that the circuit court erred in its determination that no condition or combination of

conditions would reasonably ensure her appearance for later hearings or prevent her from being

charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. Castillo claimed the court did not

consider whether EHM placement and release to Haymarket would assure her appearance and

prevent new charges. She also pointed to the one and one pretrial scores, along with her zero prior

criminal convictions and zero failures to appear at prior proceedings on her record.

¶ 11 JURISDICTION

¶ 12 Castillo appeals from the circuit court’s order of December 6, 2023. She filed this notice of

appeal on December 8, 2023, and thus the notice was timely, and this court has jurisdiction

pursuant to the Act. See 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(j) (West 2022); 725 ILCS 5/110-6.6 (West 2022); Ill.

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

¶ 13 ANALYSIS

¶ 14 On appeal, Castillo first argues that the State failed to meet its burden to show that there

were no conditions or combination of conditions that would mitigate her real and present threat to

the safety of the victims. She next argues that the circuit court erred in determining that there were

no conditions that would ensure her appearance or prevent her from being charged with a

subsequent crime because it did not consider EHM placement at Haymarket, her pretrial scores,

and lack of a prior record.

¶ 15 Under the Act, all persons charged with an offense shall be eligible for pretrial release before

conviction. 725 ILCS 5/110-2(a) (West 2022). Pretrial release may be denied upon a verified

petition by the State and following a hearing. Id. § 6.1(a). At the hearing, the State bears the burden

of proving by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the defendant committed an offense listed in

the statute; (2) the defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person, persons,

5 No. 1-23-2315B

or the community, based on the specific, articulable facts of the case; and (3) no condition or

combination of conditions can mitigate that real and present threat or the defendant’s willful flight.

Id. § 6.1(e). If the circuit court determines that the defendant should be denied pretrial release, the

court is required to make a written finding summarizing the reasons for denying pretrial release.

Id. § 6.1(h)(1).

¶ 16 Appellate decisions conflict as to the precise standard of review to apply to pretrial release

orders of the circuit court. In People v Romero, 2024 IL App (1st) 2322023-U, ¶ 31-32, another

panel of this court details this disagreement, where some courts hold that review is fully subject to

review under the abuse of discretion standard; some courts hold that review is subject to the

“manifest weight of the evidence” standard; and others hold that review is “twofold,” where the

circuit court’s factual findings are reviewed under the “manifest weight of the evidence” standard,

and the ultimate determination for pretrial release is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See

People v Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13.

¶ 17 We find the “twofold” approach in Trottier is well reasoned. The circuit court’s factual

findings regarding whether the State presented clear and convincing evidence that mandatory

conditions of release would fail to protect any person or the community or the defendant has a high

likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution is reviewed under the manifest weight of the

evidence standard. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. 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. Krisik, 2018 IL App

(1st) 161265, ¶ 53 (citing People v. Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322, 332 (2008)).

¶ 18 The circuit court’s ultimate determination regarding pretrial release is reviewed under the

abuse of discretion standard. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. An abuse of discretion

6 No. 1-23-2315B

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. Heineman,

2023 IL 127854, ¶ 59. In reviewing a circuit court’s ruling for abuse of discretion, we will not

substitute our judgment for that of the circuit court unless no reasonable person would take the

view adopted by the court. People v. Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253, ¶ 15.

¶ 19 The State first claims that Castillo’s argument that the State did not prove that no conditions

could mitigate the risk of her willful flight is forfeited. The State points to People v Clark, 2023

IL App (5th) 230878-U, where the Fifth District ruled that a defendant’s claim in his notice of

appeal was forfeited when he checked a box on the notice of appeal form to assert a claim that the

state failed to meet its burden, but did not provide any elaboration, reference to the record, or cite

any authority in support of his claim.

¶ 20 It is reasonable to conclude that by approving the pretrial release notice of appeal form, the

Illinois Supreme Court expects appellants to at least include some rudimentary facts, argument, or

support for the conclusory claim they have identified by checking a box. People v. Inman, 2023

IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 13. We find that Castillo did not forfeit her argument that the State did not

prove that no conditions could mitigate her willful flight. The State likens Castillo’s notice of

appeal to the one presented in Clark, but Castillo presents an explanation to support her claims

that the State did not present clear and convincing evidence. In Clark, the court noted that while

the defendant claimed that “the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing

evidence that the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant committed [reckless

discharge of a firearm],” he did not provide any further explanation to support his claim. Clark,

2023 IL App (5th) 230878-U, ¶ 6. Here, after Castillo checked the box on her notice of appeal

form claiming that the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence

7 No. 1-23-2315B

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, or

the defendant’s willful flight, she explained that pretrial release would only be to Haymarket and

that while she would be under EHM, she would be prohibited from leaving the facility. This

explanation addresses both how less restrictive conditions could possibly mitigate her threat to the

victims and prevent her willful flight from prosecution.

¶ 21 Turning to Castillo’s claims, she first argues that the State did not prove by clear and

convincing evidence that there were no condition or combination of conditions that would mitigate

the real and present threat to the victims’ safety, even though her counsel presented an alternative

in EHM at Haymarket. As such, denial of pretrial release was improper.

¶ 22 In response, the State argues that the record provides ample support for the circuit court’s

denial of pretrial release. The State asserts that their proffer included Castillo’s prior domestic

battery arrests that involved Lopez. Moreover, the circuit court considered and rejected Castillo’s

request for EHM at Haymarket after considering the nature and circumstances of the crime and

her prior arrests. The State also claims Castillo’s argument that the State did not argue no condition

or combination of conditions could mitigate her threat to the victims is unavailing, citing People

v. Perez, 2024 IL App (2d) 230416-U, ¶ 29.

¶ 23 Under the Act, the State must show 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 defendant’s willful flight. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(3) (West 2022). 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.” In re Tiffany W., 2012 IL App (1st)

102492-B, ¶ 12.

8 No. 1-23-2315B

¶ 24 In finding that no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the threat to the

victims, the circuit court considered that after Lopez reopened the door, Castillo escalated the

incident by running in and attacking Galacio, and that Castillo and Lopez’s child was in the car

during the incident. The court also noted Castillo’s prior domestic battery arrests upon Lopez.

¶ 25 We find that the circuit court’s finding that no mitigating conditions existed was against the

manifest weight of the evidence because the State’s evidence did not address whether EHM, or

any other less restrictive condition, could mitigate the threat to the safety of any person or persons

or the community or Castillo’s willful flight. The State’s proffer provided that Castillo committed

a forcible felony and presented a real and present threat to the victims, but no mention of whether

less restrictive conditions of release would mitigate her threat to the victims or her willful flight.

The State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that no condition could

mitigate the defendant’s threat or their willful flight under section 6.1(e)(3) of the Act.

¶ 26 People v Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, is illustrative on this point. There, another panel

of this court ruled that the circuit court’s finding that there were no conditions to mitigate the

defendant’s threat was against the manifest weight of the evidence. At the pretrial detention

hearing, the State made a factual proffer detailing the events of the incident. Id. ¶ 5. On appeal, the

court noted that the factual proffer from the State was insufficient to show that no conditions could

mitigate the threat posed by the defendant. Id. ¶ 18. In so finding, the Stock court stated, “If 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] then the legislature would have

simply deemed those accused of violent offenses ineligible for release.” Id.

¶ 27 Here, Castillo does not contest that she was charged with a forcible felony in home

invasion, or that she poses a real and present danger to the victims. Instead, she argues that EHM

9 No. 1-23-2315B

at Haymarket, and, eventually, her mother’s home, is a less restrictive condition that could mitigate

that danger or her willful flight. It is the State’s burden to prove that there are no conditions that

could mitigate the danger to the victims or Castillo’s willful flight, a burden the State failed to

meet by only relying on the factual proffer and Castillo’s prior domestic battery arrests, which, as

Stock explained, is insufficient. Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753 ¶ 20 (the circuit court cannot

infer on behalf of the State that there is no conceivable condition or combination of conditions that

could mitigate the threat).

¶ 28 The State argues that under People v. Perez, 2024 IL App (2d) 230416-U, they can rely on

the police synopsis and defendant’s history to assert their claim. This argument fails because the

evidence presented must still meet their burden for all the elements under the statute. In Perez, the

State relied on the police synopsis that detailed the defendant stating that he wanted to kill the

victim and “Hispanics” as evidence pertaining to his dangerousness to the community. Perez, 2024

IL App (2d) 230416-U, ¶ 10. The circuit court, however, did not rely on the police synopsis alone

to determine that lesser conditions would not mitigate the defendant’s threat or his willful flight.

Id. ¶ 12. Instead, the court considered the defendant’s behavior during the pretrial hearing,

including his refusal to obey court orders, outbursts, and usage of slurs, to determine that because

of his inability or unwillingness to control himself in court or follow court orders, lesser conditions

would not assure safety or the defendant’s appearance in court. Id. Conversely, the Court here

relies on the State’s proffer, which do not speak to Castillo’s ability or willingness to control

herself or obey court orders. Without additional evidence to support the claim that lesser

conditions could not mitigate the threat to the victims or Castillo’s willful flight, the State has not

met their burden for all elements of the statute. As such, the circuit court’s factual findings are

against the manifest wight of the evidence.

10 No. 1-23-2315B

¶ 29 We now turn to the ultimate determination of pretrial release, which we review for abuse

of discretion. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. Under the Act, if the circuit court orders

detention, it must make 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, or prevent the defendant’s flight from prosecution. 725

ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West 2022). Failure of the circuit court to address these conditions falls

short of the “clear legislative directive” for courts to address less restrictive conditions of release.

People v Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶ 23. By failing to address the conditions of release,

in writing, a circuit court fails to “make a record adequate to allow meaningful review of its

exercise of discretion. Id. at ¶ 24.

¶ 30 In applying section 6.1 of the Act, several courts have contemplated what constitutes a

sufficient written finding when the circuit court orders pretrial detention. In People v. Andino-

Acosta, 2024 IL App (2d) 230463, ¶ 19, the Second District held that an explicit and individualized

oral ruling may satisfy the statute. In Andino-Acosta, the court considered Justice Boie’s dissent

in People v. Odehnal, 2024 IL App (5th) 230877-U, ¶ 18, where in denying pretrial release, the

circuit court made detailed, fact-specific findings as to why pretrial release was denied. In his

dissent, Justice Boie referred to In re Madison H., 215 Ill. 2d 364 (2002), where the Illinois

Supreme Court considered a similar statute that required the circuit court to make a written finding

for determining whether a parent is unfit to raise a child. The supreme court found that explicit

oral findings stated during a hearing are sufficient for written findings after they are transcribed

because they then provide an opportunity for review of their validity on appeal. Id. at ¶21. The

11 No. 1-23-2315B

Andino-Acosta court ruled to assess the sufficiency of a trial court’s findings under section 6.1 of

the Act, the circuit court’s written findings must be read in conjunction with its oral statements.

¶ 31 While we agree with the court in Andino-Acosta, a circuit court must still provide an

explanation of its consideration of less restrictive conditions in its verbal ruling as transcribed or

in its written order. In People v Peralta, 2023 IL App (1st) 231897-U, ¶ 13, a different panel of

this court reviewed a pretrial detention order where the circuit court stated that less restrictive

conditions would not mitigate the defendant’s threat to the community or his willful flight because

the defendant “fired multiple shots on a city street . . . [due] to an altercation at a liquor store. His

[pretrial services] score corresponds with a 3.” The court found that the explanation fell short of

the requirements of section 6.1 because the circuit court did not indicate that it considered or

indicated why less restrictive conditions would not mitigate the threat. Id. The court remanded the

matter to the circuit court and directed it to consider the possibility of less restrictive conditions

and explain why or why not such alternatives would be effective. Id.

¶ 32 We find this matter similar to Peralta because the circuit court abused its discretion by not

explaining why less restrictive conditions would not mitigate Castillo’s threat to the victims or her

willful flight in oral statements or written order. At the pretrial release hearing, the judge stated

that no combination of conditions, including EHM at Haymarket and ultimately Castillo’s

mother’s address, would provide for the safety of the victims. The judge does not provide further

explanation in the transcript of the hearing as to why no conditions would provide for the victims’

safety. In the written order, the judge found that less restrictive conditions would not avoid the real

and present danger because “the victims initially closed the door on [Castillo], but [she] barged in

and escalated the event. [Castillo] has two prior [domestic battery] arrests upon [Lopez], [and]

they share a child. On this date despite the presence of [a] minor, [Castillo] attacked [the victims].”

12 No. 1-23-2315B

The court continued that less restrictive conditions would not prevent Castillo’s willful flight

because “[she] fled [the] location of attack and was apprehended by police.”

¶ 33 While these factors stated in the order are certainly reasons why defendant is being charged

and poses a risk of harm to a person or community, they do not indicate why lesser restrictions

would not mitigate the danger or Castillo’s willful flight. See People v. Turner, 2024 IL App (1st)

02082-U, ¶ 21. Castillo has zero criminal convictions, and the charges related to her prior domestic

battery arrests were dropped. Pretrial services gave Castillo scores of one for new criminal activity

and one for failure to appear. Castillo has participated in a series of treatment programs while

detained to improve herself, including group therapy, substance abuse treatment, and parenting

classes. Neither the oral statements from the transcript of the hearing or the written detention order

explain why less restrictive conditions would not mitigate Castillo’s threat to the victims or her

willful flight, as required under the Act. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶ 23.

¶ 34 In assessing the oral statements and written order, the circuit court did not explain its

reasons why less restrictive conditions to Castillo’s pretrial release would not mitigate the real and

present threat to the victims or her willful flight. As such, we conclude that its denial of pretrial

release was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the circuit court for

compliance with the Act, specifically to consider alternatives to detention, including “zero

tolerance” EHM at Haymarket and eventually Castillo’s mother’s home, and explain why or why

not these alternatives would mitigate her threat to the victims or her willful flight. 1

1 We do not consider Castillo’s other argument that that the circuit court erred in determining that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably ensure her appearance for later hearings or prevent being charged with a subsequent felony. Under the Act, when a defendant has previously been granted pretrial release, it may be revoked if they are charged with a felony or Class A misdemeanor and following a hearing. 725 ILCS 5/110-6(a) (West 2022) At the hearing, the State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence 13 No. 1-23-2315B

¶ 35 CONCLUSION

¶ 36 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the circuit court’s pretrial detention order and remand

for further proceedings consistent with this order.

¶ 37 Reversed and remanded with directions.

that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably ensure the defendant’s appearance in future hearings or prevent them from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. Id. Here, Castillo’s hearing in December was to determine pretrial release for the first time under the Act. Because the court hasn’t previously granted pretrial release, section 110-6(a) does not apply.

14 No. 1-23-2315B

People v. Castillo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232315

Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 23-CR-05346; the Hon. Margaret M. Ogarek, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys Sharone R. Mitchell, Jr. Public Defender of Cook County, of for Chicago (Ross K. Holberg, Assistant Public Defender), for Appellant: appellant.

Attorneys Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Mariela for Guzman, Assistant State’s Attorney), for the People. Appellee: