People v. Corbin

2024 IL App (1st) 240852-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: July 11, 2024
• Docket: 1-24-0852
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2024 IL App (1st) 240852-U Fourth Division Filed July 11, 2024 No. 1-24-0852B

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

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appeal from the ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of Cook County ) v. No. 24-MC1-10102501 ) EMANUEL CORBIN, ) The Honorable William Fahy, ) Judge, presiding. Defendant-Appellant. )

JUSTICE OCASIO delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Rochford and Justice Martin concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The order denying pretrial release was affirmed where the State met its burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant’s release would pose a threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community and where the strength of the State’s proffer was not significantly diminished by the defendant’s argument that the evidence against him might be susceptible to suppression.

¶2 Defendant, Emanuel Corbin, appeals from an order denying him pretrial release in

accordance with section 110-6.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1

(West 2022)). For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶3 BACKGROUND

¶4 Corbin was arrested in April 2024 and charged by complaint with being an armed habitual

criminal (see 720 ILCS 5/24-1.7 (West 2024)) and violating a Chicago ordinance prohibiting No. 1-24-0852B

carrying or possessing high-capacity magazines (see Chicago Mun. Code § 8-20-085(a) (2024)). 1

At his initial appearance after his arrest, the State filed a petition for pretrial detention alleging that

Corbin poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person, persons, or the community.

¶5 At the hearing, the State proffered the following account of the charged offense:

“On April 10, 2024, at approximately 4 p.m. at the 1100 block of North

Harding Street in Chicago, *** [o]fficers were on routine patrol when they

observed this defendant walking westbound on Division approaching

Harding. Officers further observed defendant’s left jacket pocket to be

weighted [sic] down by a heavy object and the imprint of an extended

firearm magazine shape in his hoodie pocket.

As the defendant became aware of the [officers’] presence[,] this

defendant began to scan the area. Believing the defendant to be armed with

an illegal firearm[,] officers exit[ed] the vehicle to conduct an investigatory

stop of the defendant. As the officers exited the vehicle[,] the defendant

immediately began to flee southbound on Harding. After a brief foot

pursuit[,] officers were able to detain the defendant in the back of 1115

North Harding Avenue.

Officers conducted a protective pat down of the defendant in the area of

the originally observed weighted down object. Officers felt a hard metal L

shape[d] object consistent with a firearm. Officers subsequently recovered

the firearm out of defendant’s left jacket pocket[,] which was a Ruger 380

LCP[,] which was loaded with an extended magazine containing live rounds

and one live round in the chamber.

1 While this appeal was pending, the State filed a superseding indictment under case number 24-CR-0451601 charging Corbin with being an armed habitual criminal, unlawful use or possession of a weapon by a felon (see 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2024)), and two counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (see id. § 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A-5); (a)(1), (a)(3)(C)).

-2- No. 1-24-0852B

Officers inquired whether defendant had possessed a valid FOID or

Conceal[ed] Carry [License,] which the defendant indicated that he did not.

Defendant was placed into custody.”

¶6 The State then proffered Corbin’s criminal history. As a juvenile, he was adjudicated

delinquent in 1997 for committing armed robbery and, after violating probation, was sentenced to

the Department of Juvenile Justice. Between 2002 and 2008, he was convicted six times for

possessing a controlled substance or for manufacturing or delivering a controlled substance. In

three of those cases, he was sentenced to probation. All three times, he violated the original

sentence of probation and, in two of them, was ultimately sentenced to prison. He received prison

sentences for the other three drug convictions. During that period, in 2005, he was also convicted

of aggravated battery of a police officer. In 2018, he was once again convicted of manufacturing

or delivering a controlled substance, and he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Most

recently, in 2022, he was convicted of aggravated domestic battery, with the aggravating factor

being strangulation. He had finished his parole term on February 14, 2024—less than two months

before the charged offense. In addition to his felony history, Corbin’s record included two

convictions for nonviolent misdemeanors and a pair of bond forfeitures.

¶7 The State argued that Corbin committed the detainable offense of being an armed habitual

criminal based on his prior felony convictions. The State also argued that Corbin posed a real and

present threat to the safety of any person, persons, or the community because (1) he was a

convicted felon who, despite having recently been released from parole, was carrying a firearm in

disregard of the law, (2) he fled from the scene to avoid criminal charges, and (3) he possessed a

loaded firearm with an extended magazine. The State also argued that no condition or combination

of conditions could mitigate the risk that Corbin poses to the community. It highlighted that Corbin

had been found guilty of committing at least three violent felonies, including the conviction for

domestic battery for which he had been serving a sentence until less than two months earlier, and

it also noted that, in four previous cases, he had been found in violation of probation conditions

that had been set by the court.

-3- No. 1-24-0852B

¶8 According to a representative from pretrial services, Corbin scored a 4 for new criminal

activity and a 3 for failure to appear on a public safety assessment, leading to a recommendation

of release on level two pretrial supervision.

¶9 The defense first argued that the State had not shown that the proof was evident and the

presumption great that Corbin had committed a detainable offense because the gun was likely the

fruit of a fourth amendment violation. Counsel argued that the heavy object seen by the officers

could have been any number of things and that Corbin’s response to the officers’ arrival—looking

around the area and then fleeing—did not suggest consciousness of guilt. Because the officers

were in an unmarked vehicle and the proffer did not state whether they were in uniform, displayed

badges, or said anything about making a stop, counsel argued, Corbin may well have been acting

out of concern for his safety, not fear of apprehension. The defense next argued that, because

Corbin did not brandish the gun or even try to grab it from his pocket, his release pending trial

would not pose a real and present threat to any other person’s safety. Counsel further noted that,

despite its length, Corbin’s criminal record included only three violent offenses and that he had not

been flagged for new violent criminal activity. Finally, the defense argued that any threat could be

addressed through conditions of release, emphasizing that there were no allegations that Corbin

has ever violated electronic or GPS monitoring, and argued that, given the length of time that had

passed since Corbin’s last probation violation, counsel believed that he could abide by conditions

of release. Defense counsel also proffered that Corbin was employed full-time at a hospital, served

as a caregiver for his paralyzed uncle, and provided for his children.

¶ 10 After hearing the parties’ proffers and arguments, the court entered its findings. First, it

found that the State’s proffer showed that the proof was evident and the presumption great that

Corbin had committed the offense of being an armed habitual criminal. It noted that it had

considered the potential fourth amendment issue raised by the defense, but it explained that,

“without hearing more,” it was “difficult to really make any determination” about it. Second, based

on Corbin having only recently completed his parole after his conviction for an aggravated

domestic battery that involved strangulation and the fact that he was running from police while

-4- No. 1-24-0852B

carrying a loaded gun with an extended magazine in the late afternoon, creating a dangerous

situation for himself, the officers, and members of the public who might be in the vicinity, the court

found that Corbin’s release would pose a real and present threat to the safety of others. Third, the

court found that no set of release conditions could mitigate that threat. It acknowledged the

mitigating facts proffered by the defense, but it explained that Corbin’s criminal history provided

“ten reasons why this defendant should never be near a firearm let alone a firearm like this” and

that electronic monitoring would not prevent Corbin from committing violent crimes or possessing

dangerous weapons with extended magazines. Having found that the State had met its burden, the

court granted the petition to detain.

¶ 11 ANALYSIS

¶ 12 On appeal, Corbin challenges the trial court’s findings that his release would pose a real

and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community and that no conditions

of release could mitigate that threat. He also argues that the trial court did not properly consider

whether the evidence against him would be subject to suppression on fourth amendment grounds.

¶ 13 Under recent amendments to our state’s pretrial-release statutes, all defendants are eligible

for pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/110-2(a) (West 2024). Even in circumstances where pretrial release

may be denied, there is a presumption in favor of release, which the State has the burden of

overcoming by clear and convincing evidence. Id. §§ 110-2(c), 110-6.1(a), (e). In cases where the

State seeks the denial of pretrial release on the basis of dangerousness, it must prove three

propositions by clear and convincing evidence: (1) that the proof is evident and the presumption

great that the defendant committed a detainable offense, (2) that the defendant 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, and (3) that no set of release conditions can mitigate that threat. Id.

§ 110-6.1(e)(1)-(3). “Evidence is clear and convincing if it leaves no reasonable doubt in the mind

of the trier of fact as to the truth of the proposition in question.” Chaudhary v. Department of

Human Services, 2023 IL 127712, ¶ 74.

-5- No. 1-24-0852B

¶ 14 The standard for reviewing the trial court’s findings is not yet settled, but most published

decisions utilize the manifest-weight standard, the abuse-of-discretion standard, or some

combination of those two. See People v. Lee, 2024 IL App (1st) 232137, ¶ 21 (collecting cases). A

finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only when “the opposite conclusion is clearly

evident or if the finding itself is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented.”

People v. Castillo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232315, ¶ 17. A trial court abuses its discretion by making a

decision that “is arbitrary, unreasonable, or fanciful” or by adopting a position that “no reasonable

person would have taken.” Id. ¶ 18. Some justices (including the author of this decision) have

taken the position that, given the importance of the fundamental liberty interest at stake, orders

denying pretrial release should be reviewed de novo except to the extent they are based on findings

of historical fact. People v. Whitaker, 2024 IL App (1st) 232009, ¶ 137 (Ellis, J., concurring). For

the purpose of this appeal, we do not need to decide which of these approaches to the standard of

review is correct. Whether reviewed deferentially or de novo, we find no error in the trial court’s

decision to deny Corbin pretrial release.

¶ 15 We agree with the trial court that the State’s proffer showed, by clear and convincing

evidence, that Corbin’s release would pose a real and present threat to the safety of any person or

persons or the community. As to the charged offense, the State’s proffer disclosed that Corbin,

whose previous felony convictions barred him from possessing a firearm, was caught carrying not

just any gun but a loaded semiautomatic handgun that was illegally equipped with an extended

magazine. The point of an extended magazine is to allow a shooter to fire more rounds before

needing to reload, so it is an easy inference that Corbin was anticipating the need to rapidly fire an

unusually high number of bullets, threatening the safety of both the intended target and any

bystanders in the vicinity. That threat was not negated by the fact that he chose not to brandish the

gun when running from the police. See 725 ILCS 5/10-6.1(g)(7) (West 2024) (enumerating

possession or access to a weapon as a factor relevant to determining dangerousness). Corbin’s

recent conviction for aggravated domestic violence underscores the danger his mere possession of

a gun poses to others. See, e.g., United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915, 602 U.S. ____, slip op. at 5-6

-6- No. 1-24-0852B

(June 21, 2024) (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (describing the especial danger posed by domestic

abusers with access to guns).

¶ 16 We also agree with the trial court’s determination that no set of release conditions could

mitigate the threat Corbin’s release would pose. The State’s proffer showed that he has a history

of violating probation conditions, demonstrating his willingness to disregard any condition the

court might set. Between that track record, the practical difficulty of detecting and acting on any

violations of release conditions meant to guard against his possession of deadly weapons, and the

severe—if not fatal—consequences should the threat he poses come to fruition, we find no error

in the trial court’s determination that no set of release conditions would be adequate under the

circumstances of this case.

¶ 17 Lastly, Corbin argues that, in finding that the proof was evident and the presumption great

that he committed the charged offense, the trial court failed to “give[] proper weight” to the

possibility that the evidence against him was acquired through violating his fourth amendment

rights. Again, we perceive no error. Although the trial court may not entertain suppression motions

during detention hearings, “evidence that proof of the charged crime may have been the result of

an unlawful search or seizure, or both, *** is relevant in assessing the weight of the evidence

against the defendant.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(f)(6) (West 2024). Here, according to the State’s

proffer, the police officers’ encounter with Corbin was triggered by their observation of “the

imprint of an extended firearm magazine shape in his hoodie pocket,” which, if true, would give

rise to a reasonable belief that Corbin was violating a city ordinance banning extended magazines.

See People v. Page, 2024 IL App (1st) 220830, ¶¶ 28, 30 (recognizing that the violation of a county

ordinance barring possession of large-capacity magazines can provide probable cause for a search

of a car). Neither party proffered any facts to counter that representation, so we agree with the trial

court that the theoretical possibility that the officers violated Corbin’s fourth amendment rights did

not significantly diminish the strength of the State’s proffer as to the facts of the offense. We note,

however, that our decision is based strictly on the record before us, which was developed within

“the narrow purpose and scope of the detention hearing.” People v. Parker, 2024 IL App (1st)

-7- No. 1-24-0852B

232164, ¶ 69. Our decision does not preclude Corbin from filing a motion to suppress, and we

express no view as to the merits of any motion he may choose to file. Id.

¶ 18 CONCLUSION

¶ 19 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order denying pretrial release.

¶ 20 Affirmed.

-8-