People v. Challans

2024 IL App (5th) 240353, 247 N.E.3d 685

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: May 28, 2024
• Docket: 5-24-0353
• Status: Published

Opinion

2024 IL App (5th) 240353 NOTICE NOTICE Decision filed 05/28/24. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NO. 5-24-0353 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to not precedent except in the the filing of a Petition for IN THE limited circumstances allowed Rehearing or the disposition of under Rule 23(e)(1). the same. APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Christian County. ) v. ) No. 24-CM-16 ) JARAD A. CHALLANS, ) Honorable ) Amanda S. Ade-Harlow, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Welch and Sholar concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶1 The defendant, Jarad A. Challans, appeals the March 5, 2024, order of the circuit court of

Christian County, denying the defendant’s pretrial release pursuant to article 110 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/art. 110 (West 2022)). 1 The defendant argues that

the circuit court erred when it detained the defendant because he was not charged with a detainable

offense as provided in section 110-6.1(a) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a) (West 2022)). For

the following reasons, we reverse the circuit court’s order and remand for a new hearing to allow

the circuit court to consider those mandatory conditions for defendant’s pretrial release, pursuant

1 As amended by Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today (SAFE-T) Act (Act). See Pub. Act 101-652, § 10-255 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023); see also Pub. Act 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023) (amending various provisions of the Act); Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 52 (lifting stay and setting effective date as September 18, 2023). 1 to section 110-10 (725 ILCS 5/110-10 (West 2022)) and any other conditions deemed necessary

under the particular facts of this case.

¶2 I. BACKGROUND

¶3 On March 5, 2024, the defendant was charged by information with one count of aggravated

assault, a Class A misdemeanor (720 ILCS 5/12-2(b)(1) (West 2022) (miscited in the charging

instrument as “720 ILCS 5/12-2(a)(1)”)). On the same day, the State filed a verified petition to

deny the defendant pretrial release. The State alleged in its verified petition that the proof is evident

and the presumption great that the defendant committed an offense listed in section 110-6.1(a) of

the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a) (West 2022)) and that the defendant is charged with an offense

under section 110-6.1(a)(1), (1.5), or (3) through (7) (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1), (1.5), (3)-(7)

(West 2022)) and the defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person or

persons or the community. The State’s verified petition was supported by a police report from the

defendant’s arrest, which also described previous interactions between the police and the

defendant. The victim in this case was James Challans, the defendant’s father. The police report

details that there was an extensive history between James and the defendant because James was

the payee for the defendant’s social security benefits. The defendant had a history of complaining

that he had not received his money from James. Each time there was a complaint, police officers

verified that James had given the defendant his money. They had determined in the past that James

had given the defendant his money, only withholding enough money to keep the bank account

active. Officers had previously witnessed the defendant yell and threaten to kill James on numerous

occasions. The defendant had been arrested for criminal damage to James’s door and was currently

suspected of attempting to burn down James’s house. That case was still under investigation.

Following two separate incidents between the defendant and James, the defendant was

2 involuntarily admitted to Springfield Memorial Hospital for a mental health evaluation. Both

times, the defendant was released from the hospital after about a week.

¶4 Also, on March 5, 2024, the circuit court held a hearing on the State’s petition to deny the

defendant’s pretrial release. During the State’s proffer it detailed the events that occurred on March

4, 2024, where officers were dispatched to the home of James Challans to remove the defendant

from James’s home. The defendant left James’s home as requested by the officers and reported to

the police department to make a statement. While at the police department, the defendant screamed

and threatened to kill James to get his money. The defendant specifically threatened that he would

kill James with a knife if he had to. The State noted that the defendant had been involuntarily

committed twice for a mental health evaluation after displaying deeply concerning behavior, which

officers described as “manic with delusional thoughts of rage and harm.” The State asked that the

court find probable cause for aggravated assault against James because the report listed James’s

age as 70 years old. The State alleged that the defendant was aware of James’s age because he was

the defendant’s father. Based on the defendant’s history, the State argued that the defendant’s

statements to officers and James would place James in a reasonable apprehension of receiving a

battery. The State then proceeded to discuss the factors of dangerousness. The State noted that the

defendant had not participated in the pretrial investigation report. As a result, there was no

information regarding the defendant’s mental health treatment or any relevant information on how

to safely help the defendant. In addition, the State asked the court to take judicial notice of the

defendant’s criminal history, which included convictions for burglary in 2008 and domestic battery

in 2012. The State then argued that while there was no physical contact with the victim in this case,

the offense was of a violent nature as the defendant threatened to kill James. In further support of

its position, the State argued that the defendant’s criminal history and mental health history were

3 issues of concern, especially the mental health history because it displayed a pattern of behavior.

The State stated that the main person at risk if the defendant was released was James, as there were

ongoing incidents and they lived next door to one another. Additionally, the State argued that there

was a potential that the defendant may seek retribution against James. There was no history that

the defendant possessed or had access to weapons, but the State presumed that he had access to

knives because of the threats he made against James. Due to the prior issues between the defendant

and James, their proximity to each other, and the lack of information in the pretrial services

investigation report, the State argued that there were no conditions or combinations of conditions

that could mitigate the real and present threat to any person or persons or the community posed by

the defendant. In conclusion, the State requested that the circuit court grant its petition to detain

the defendant.

¶5 Defense counsel then argued that the defendant was not charged with a detainable offense.

The State responded that section 110-6.1(a)(7) stated that any person that attempts to inflict harm

upon another can be detained, which would include attempted domestic battery. Defense counsel

replied that the defendant would need to be charged with that offense, and the defendant was not

charged with domestic battery or attempted domestic battery. The circuit court was not persuaded

by the defense counsel’s argument regarding whether aggravated assault in this case was a

nondetainable offense.

¶6 Defense counsel continued with its argument against the State’s verified petition.

Regarding the dangerousness factors, defense counsel asked the court to consider that the most

recent criminal charge was from 2012. Defense counsel also requested that the court not view the

defendant’s failure to meet with pretrial services negatively because the defendant was maintaining

his right to remain silent. Lastly, defense counsel believed that there were conditions that could

4 mitigate the real and present threat alleged by the State, including mental health treatment, a no

contact order, and electronic monitoring.

¶7 After considering the proffers and arguments from counsel the circuit court found that

“even if aggravated assault to an individual 60 years of age or older is not a qualifying offense for

which detention can be ordered, the defendant could be charged with attempt domestic battery.”

The circuit court did not think that it was appropriate to increase or enhance charges against the

defendant when the State had charged the defendant with an offense it believed appropriate under

the circumstances. In addition, the court found that the proof was evident and the presumption

great that the defendant committed the offense charged. Further, the circuit court found that it was

proved by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant posed a real and present threat to James

and the community and that no conditions or combination of conditions could mitigate the threat

posed by the defendant’s release. The defendant was ordered detained. Following the hearing, the

circuit court entered a written order that detained the defendant and found that by clear and

convincing evidence that the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant had

committed a qualifying offense listed in paragraphs (1) through (7) of section 110-6.1(a) of the

Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1)-(7) (West 2022)) and the defendant posed 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 and no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the real and present threat

to the safety of any person or persons.

¶8 The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on March 6, 2024. On appeal, the defendant

argues that the circuit court’s March 5, 2024, order should be reversed because the charged offense

in this case was not detainable under section 110-6.1(a). The State filed a memorandum in

response. The State argues that the defendant’s risk to any person or the community warrants

5 detention despite not being charged with an explicitly detainable offense. In support, the State

contends that the purpose of the Code is to allow the circuit court to be proactive when determining

dangerousness and remanding this case for a new hearing or to require the State to recharge the

defendant with detainable offense would not be what the legislature intended. Also, the State

argued that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered the defendant to be

detained.

¶9 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 10 Pretrial release is governed by article 110 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/art. 110 (West 2022)),

as amended by the Act. Under the Code, a defendant’s pretrial release may only be denied in

certain statutorily limited situations. See 725 ILCS 5/110-2(a), 110-6.1 (West 2022). Upon 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 qualifying offense, that 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 that 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. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e), (f) (West

2022). The trial court may order a defendant detained pending trial if the defendant is charged with

a qualifying offense, and the trial court concludes the defendant poses a real and present threat to

the safety of any person or the community (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1)-(7) (West 2022)) or there is

a high likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(8) (West 2022)).

The sole issue on appeal is whether the charged offense was a detainable offense as defined in

section 110-6.1(a). Resolution of this issue requires us to interpret section 110-6.1(a) of the Code.

6 ¶ 11 Statutory interpretation presents a question of law that is subject to de novo review. People

v. Smith, 2016 IL 119659, ¶ 15. The primary object of statutory construction is to ascertain and

give effect to the true intent of the legislature, and all other rules are subordinate to this principle.

People v. Jamison, 229 Ill. 2d 184, 188 (2008). “The most reliable indicator of legislative intent is

the language of the statute, given its plain and ordinary meaning.” People v. Clark, 2019 IL

122891, ¶ 20. “A court must view the statute as a whole, construing words and phrases in light of

other relevant statutory provisions and not in isolation.” Clark, 2019 IL 122891, ¶ 20. “Each word,

clause, and sentence of a statute must be given a reasonable meaning, if possible, and should not

be rendered superfluous.” Clark, 2019 IL 122891, ¶ 20.

¶ 12 The Code allows the circuit court to detain the defendant if “the defendant is charged with

an attempt to commit any charge listed in paragraphs (1) through (6.5), and it is alleged that the

defendant’s pretrial release poses 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.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(7)

(West 2022). The State suggests that the defendant is eligible for detention because he could have

been charged with attempted aggravated stalking or attempted domestic battery, which are charges

listed in paragraphs (2) and (4) respectively, and the defendant’s dangerousness warrants

detention. However, in this case, the defendant was not charged with either offense, but rather was

charged with aggravated assault. Aggravated assault is not included in the vast list of detainable

offenses contained in the Code. The language of the Code requires that the defendant “is charged

with” with a detainable offense or an attempt of a detainable offense. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a) (West

2022). The legislature did not include language that allows for the possibility of a charge, e.g.,

“could be charged with.” We cannot read any additional, permissible language into the Code.

People v. Gorss, 2022 IL 126464, ¶ 10 (“[W]here the language used is plain and unambiguous, we

7 may not ‘depart from its terms’ or read into the rule exceptions, limitations, or conditions that

conflict with the drafters’ intent.” (quoting Acme Markets, Inc. v. Callanan, 236 Ill. 2d 29, 38

(2009))). As a result, the court erred when it detained the defendant because the offense as charged

is not a detainable offense.

¶ 13 Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. Upon remand, the circuit court

is instructed to hold a prompt hearing to consider the mandatory conditions listed in section 110-

10 and to impose any additional conditions necessary to ensure the defendant’s appearance as

required for the safety of the person or persons or the community.

¶ 14 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 15 For the reasons stated, we reverse the circuit court’s judgment and remand with directions

that the court promptly set the case for hearing to address the defendant’s pretrial release.

¶ 16 Reversed and remanded with directions.

8 People v. Challans, 2024 IL App (5th) 240353

Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Christian County, No. 24-CM- 16; the Hon. Amanda S. Ade-Harlow, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys James E. Chadd, State Appellate Defender, Carolyn R. for Klarquist, Director of Pretrial Fairness Unit, Benjamin Appellant: Wimmer, Assistant Appellate Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender Pretrial Fairness Unit, of Chicago, for Appellant.

Attorneys David Joseph Robinson, of State’s Attorneys Appellate for Prosecutor’s Office, of Springfield, State’s Attorney Appellate Appellee: Prosecutor, Pretrial Fairness Act Unit, of Springfield, for the People.