NOTICE 2024 IL App (5th) 230911 Decision filed 01/10/24. The text of this decision may be NO. 5-23-0911 changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for IN THE Rehearing or the disposition of the same. APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Champaign County. ) v. ) No. 23-CF-1167 ) ELIJAH M. DUCKWORTH, ) Honorable ) Brett N. Olmstead, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________
PRESIDING JUSTICE VAUGHAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Barberis and Boie concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 The defendant, Elijah M. Duckworth, appeals the trial court’s order denying him pretrial
release pursuant to Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as the Safety,
Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today (SAFE-T) Act (Act). 1 See Pub. Act 101-652, § 10-255
(eff. Jan. 1, 2023); Pub. Act 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023); Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248,
¶ 52 (lifting stay and setting effective date as September 18, 2023). The Office of the State
Appellate Defendant (OSAD) was appointed to represent the defendant on appeal. On December
1 The press and politicians have also sometimes referred to the Act as the Pretrial Fairness Act. Neither name is official, as neither appears in the Illinois Compiled Statutes or public act. 1 6, 2023, OSAD filed a notice indicating that the defendant would not be filing an Illinois Supreme
Court Rule 604(h) (eff. Oct. 19, 2023) memorandum. 2
¶2 On December 7, 2023, the State moved for dismissal of the defendant’s appeal. In support,
the State argued that the defendant’s notice of appeal merely checked boxes setting forth issues in
his notice of appeal and failed to provide any grounds for the relief. In further support, the State
cited People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶¶ 12-13, addressing deficiencies found in that
notice of appeal.
¶3 On December 11, 2023, OSAD filed a response arguing that the State’s motion was an
“attempt to execute a bait-and-switch on the criminal trial attorneys of Illinois” because the form
used was “approved by the Illinois Supreme Court.” OSAD argues that checking boxes is “entirely
sufficient to satisfy the function of a notice of appeal”—namely, to “evince the appellant’s desire
to appeal and convey jurisdiction.” OSAD further argues that the notice alone confers jurisdiction
and Inman did not dismiss the appeal. Finally, OSAD contends that Inman’s “invocation of the
appellate court’s ‘entitle[ment] to have the issues on appeal clearly defined’ ignores the fact” that
such interlocutory appeals have a limited context and “appellant’s arguments as to why they should
not be detained can be ascertained in mere minutes by reading the transcript,” which this court
must do anyway.
¶4 Given the arguments, we first consider the defendant’s October 11, 2023, notice of appeal.
The notice’s requested relief was listed as reversal of the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s
Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(5) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023), our decision in this case 2
was due on or before January 8, 2024, absent a finding of good cause for extending the deadline. Based on the high volume of appeals under the Act currently under the court’s consideration, as well as the complexity of issues and the lack of precedential authority, we find there to be good cause for extending the deadline.
2 pretrial release. The notice of appeal checked boxes listing the following issues on appeal: (1) the
State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was
evident or the presumption great that the defendant committed the offense(s) charged; (2) the State
failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that 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; (3) the State failed to meets its burden of proving by clear
and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions could 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; and (4) the court erred in its
determination that no conditions or combination of conditions would reasonably ensure the
appearance of the defendant for later hearings or prevent the defendant from being charged with a
subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. Although the notice of appeal form provided
additional spaces for elaboration of each issue, the defendant did not elaborate and left the spaces
blank.
¶5 We agree with OSAD’s argument that the defendant’s notice of appeal is sufficient to
invoke this court’s jurisdiction. As noted by Rule 606(a), “No step in the perfection of the appeal
other than the filing of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 606(a) (eff. Sept. 18,
2023). Here, the defendant’s notice of appeal was timely filed and contained the issues he wished
to raise on appeal. That is all that is required to provide this court with jurisdiction. See People v.
Presley, 2023 IL App (5th) 230970, ¶¶ 24-26. Accordingly, we find we have jurisdiction over this
appeal. However, OSAD’s contention that the defendant is not required to provide any argument
supporting his issues on appeal is not well taken.
3 ¶6 “Rule 604(h) requires the notice of appeal to include a description of the relief to be
requested ‘and the grounds for the relief requested.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Inman, 2023 IL App
(4th) 230864, ¶ 12 (quoting Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)(2) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023)). Thus, “some form of
argument is required, along with justification for claiming entitlement for relief—like references
to the record, the evidence presented, or, if possible, legal authority.” Id. The reviewing court
“cannot be expected to formulate an argument for defendant out of whole cloth.” Id. ¶ 13. “The
appellate court is not a depository in which the appellant may dump the burden of argument and
research.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.; see People ex rel. Illinois Department of Labor
v. E.R.H. Enterprises, Inc., 2013 IL 115106, ¶ 56.
¶7 While it is undisputed this court is obligated to review the record presented on appeal, it is
neither this court’s burden nor obligation to provide arguments in support of issues raised by an
appellant. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 13. To presume, as contended by OSAD, that this
court would present arguments on behalf of the appellant and then issue a ruling on those same
arguments is both incredulous and contrary to well-established Illinois Supreme Court rules
governing appeals. Id. (“Even without the application of Rule 341, we doubt Rule 604(h) now
requires the appellate court to act as an advocate or seek error on the appellant’s behalf—
something heretofore expressly forbidden.”).
¶8 Here, the defendant failed to comply with the requirement of Rule 604(h). The defendant
couched his claims in the conclusory language of article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of
1963 (725 ILCS 5/art.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE 2024 IL App (5th) 230911 Decision filed 01/10/24. The text of this decision may be NO. 5-23-0911 changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for IN THE Rehearing or the disposition of the same. APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Champaign County. ) v. ) No. 23-CF-1167 ) ELIJAH M. DUCKWORTH, ) Honorable ) Brett N. Olmstead, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________
PRESIDING JUSTICE VAUGHAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Barberis and Boie concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 The defendant, Elijah M. Duckworth, appeals the trial court’s order denying him pretrial
release pursuant to Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as the Safety,
Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today (SAFE-T) Act (Act). 1 See Pub. Act 101-652, § 10-255
(eff. Jan. 1, 2023); Pub. Act 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023); Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248,
¶ 52 (lifting stay and setting effective date as September 18, 2023). The Office of the State
Appellate Defendant (OSAD) was appointed to represent the defendant on appeal. On December
1 The press and politicians have also sometimes referred to the Act as the Pretrial Fairness Act. Neither name is official, as neither appears in the Illinois Compiled Statutes or public act. 1 6, 2023, OSAD filed a notice indicating that the defendant would not be filing an Illinois Supreme
Court Rule 604(h) (eff. Oct. 19, 2023) memorandum. 2
¶2 On December 7, 2023, the State moved for dismissal of the defendant’s appeal. In support,
the State argued that the defendant’s notice of appeal merely checked boxes setting forth issues in
his notice of appeal and failed to provide any grounds for the relief. In further support, the State
cited People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶¶ 12-13, addressing deficiencies found in that
notice of appeal.
¶3 On December 11, 2023, OSAD filed a response arguing that the State’s motion was an
“attempt to execute a bait-and-switch on the criminal trial attorneys of Illinois” because the form
used was “approved by the Illinois Supreme Court.” OSAD argues that checking boxes is “entirely
sufficient to satisfy the function of a notice of appeal”—namely, to “evince the appellant’s desire
to appeal and convey jurisdiction.” OSAD further argues that the notice alone confers jurisdiction
and Inman did not dismiss the appeal. Finally, OSAD contends that Inman’s “invocation of the
appellate court’s ‘entitle[ment] to have the issues on appeal clearly defined’ ignores the fact” that
such interlocutory appeals have a limited context and “appellant’s arguments as to why they should
not be detained can be ascertained in mere minutes by reading the transcript,” which this court
must do anyway.
¶4 Given the arguments, we first consider the defendant’s October 11, 2023, notice of appeal.
The notice’s requested relief was listed as reversal of the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s
Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(5) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023), our decision in this case 2
was due on or before January 8, 2024, absent a finding of good cause for extending the deadline. Based on the high volume of appeals under the Act currently under the court’s consideration, as well as the complexity of issues and the lack of precedential authority, we find there to be good cause for extending the deadline.
2 pretrial release. The notice of appeal checked boxes listing the following issues on appeal: (1) the
State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was
evident or the presumption great that the defendant committed the offense(s) charged; (2) the State
failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that 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; (3) the State failed to meets its burden of proving by clear
and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions could 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; and (4) the court erred in its
determination that no conditions or combination of conditions would reasonably ensure the
appearance of the defendant for later hearings or prevent the defendant from being charged with a
subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. Although the notice of appeal form provided
additional spaces for elaboration of each issue, the defendant did not elaborate and left the spaces
blank.
¶5 We agree with OSAD’s argument that the defendant’s notice of appeal is sufficient to
invoke this court’s jurisdiction. As noted by Rule 606(a), “No step in the perfection of the appeal
other than the filing of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 606(a) (eff. Sept. 18,
2023). Here, the defendant’s notice of appeal was timely filed and contained the issues he wished
to raise on appeal. That is all that is required to provide this court with jurisdiction. See People v.
Presley, 2023 IL App (5th) 230970, ¶¶ 24-26. Accordingly, we find we have jurisdiction over this
appeal. However, OSAD’s contention that the defendant is not required to provide any argument
supporting his issues on appeal is not well taken.
3 ¶6 “Rule 604(h) requires the notice of appeal to include a description of the relief to be
requested ‘and the grounds for the relief requested.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Inman, 2023 IL App
(4th) 230864, ¶ 12 (quoting Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)(2) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023)). Thus, “some form of
argument is required, along with justification for claiming entitlement for relief—like references
to the record, the evidence presented, or, if possible, legal authority.” Id. The reviewing court
“cannot be expected to formulate an argument for defendant out of whole cloth.” Id. ¶ 13. “The
appellate court is not a depository in which the appellant may dump the burden of argument and
research.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.; see People ex rel. Illinois Department of Labor
v. E.R.H. Enterprises, Inc., 2013 IL 115106, ¶ 56.
¶7 While it is undisputed this court is obligated to review the record presented on appeal, it is
neither this court’s burden nor obligation to provide arguments in support of issues raised by an
appellant. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 13. To presume, as contended by OSAD, that this
court would present arguments on behalf of the appellant and then issue a ruling on those same
arguments is both incredulous and contrary to well-established Illinois Supreme Court rules
governing appeals. Id. (“Even without the application of Rule 341, we doubt Rule 604(h) now
requires the appellate court to act as an advocate or seek error on the appellant’s behalf—
something heretofore expressly forbidden.”).
¶8 Here, the defendant failed to comply with the requirement of Rule 604(h). The defendant
couched his claims in the conclusory language of article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of
1963 (725 ILCS 5/art. 110 (West 2022)) and referred to no evidence in the record upon which to
evaluate his claims. He furthermore fails to provide any legal argument or authority in support of
his claims. Moreover, OSAD, defendant’s counsel on appeal, declined its opportunity to provide
the missing argument, citation of the record, or authority that would support any argument that
4 could have been made for the issues raised on appeal. Therefore, we find this court has nothing on
which to base an analysis of the defendant’s allegations on appeal, and the defendant forfeited the
issues raised on appeal. For the foregoing reasons, we grant the State’s motion and dismiss this
appeal.
¶9 Appeal dismissed.
5 People v. Duckworth, 2024 IL App (5th) 230911
Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Champaign County, No. 23- CF-1167; the Hon. Brett N. Olmstead, Judge, presiding.
Attorneys James E. Chadd, Carolyn R. Klarquist, Benjamin Wimmer, and for Giselle Jerezano, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Appellant: Chicago, for appellant.
Attorneys Patrick Delfino and David J. Robinson, of State’s Attorneys for Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of Springfield, for the People. Appellee: