People v. Endsley

2024 IL App (5th) 240849-U

Opinion

NOTICE 2024 IL App (5th) 240849-U NOTICE Decision filed 09/25/24. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NO. 5-24-0849 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, ) Jefferson County. ) v. ) No. 23-CF-328 ) RYAN ENDSLEY, ) Honorable ) Jerry E. Crisel, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE MOORE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Cates and Barberis concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The defendant waived any argument regarding the alleged untimeliness of the hearing on the petition to revoke by failing to raise it in his motion for relief as required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(2).

¶2 I. BACKGROUND

¶3 On November 3, 2023, the defendant, Ryan Endsley, was arrested and released for alleged

criminal damage to government supported property. On the same date, Endsley was provided

notice to appear in court on December 11, 2023. Endsley was charged by information with one

count of criminal damage to government supported property, a Class 4 felony, in Jefferson County

case No. 23-CF-328. On November 16, 2023, a grand jury returned an indictment on the same

charge, and Endsley’s first appearance was rescheduled to take place on January 8, 2024.

1 ¶4 On January 8, 2024, Endsley failed to appear, and the circuit court issued an arrest warrant,

which was executed on January 11, 2024. On January 26, 2024, Endsley was released on a

conditions of pretrial release order.

¶5 On March 20, 2024, Endsley failed to appear, and the circuit court issued an arrest warrant,

which was executed on April 1, 2024. Endsley was again released with conditions of pretrial

release.

¶6 On June 11, 2024, Endsley again failed to appear, and the trial court issued an arrest

warrant. Endsley was arrested on July 4, 2024, and charged in Jefferson County case No. 24-CF-

178 with possession of a stolen motor vehicle.

¶7 On July 5, 2024, the State filed a petition to revoke Endsley’s pretrial release. The circuit

court conducted a hearing on the petition to revoke on July 9, 2024, and revoked Endsley’s pretrial

release after finding that Endsley violated his conditions of pretrial release and that no conditions

could ensure Endsley’s appearance or prevent future charges.

¶8 On July 15, 2024, Endsley filed a motion for relief which alleged the following:

“1. Ryan Endsley was arrested on 11/3/23 and charged with Criminal Damage

to Government Supported Property, a class 4 felony. Thereafter on 6/11/24, he was arrested

on charges of Unlawful Possession of a Stolen Vehicle, a class 2 felony.

2. A Petition to Revoke Pretrial Release was filed by the State and hearing was

held on 7/9/24, at which time Petitioner’s Pretrial Release was revoked.

3. The court found that no condition or combination of conditions or [sic]

release would reasonably ensure Defendant appears for later hearings and prevent

Defendant from being charged with a subsequent Felony or Class A Misdemeanor.

2 4. Defendant has a place where he can stay while on home confinement and/or

electronic monitoring. Defendant suffers from mental health maladies and needs to be in

treatment not custody.

5. Continued detention is not necessary in this matter.

6. Defendant could be placed on home confinement and/or electronic

monitoring. The Defendant’s girlfriend, Haleigh Myers, who resides in Jefferson County

was in the courtroom at the time [of] said Hearing [and] stated that the Defendant could

reside with her while on home confinement. As for the safety of a person, persons or the

community, none of the Defendant’s past convictions indicate that he is violent or in

anyway a danger to anyone.

7. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the defendant’s continued

detention is not necessary. Defendant will comply with any conditions the Court imposes

for release.

8. The State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing

evidence that no condition or combination of conditions can 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.

10. [sic] The court erred in its determination that no condition or combination of

conditions would reasonably ensure the appearance of the Defendant for later hearings or

prevent defendant from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor.”

¶9 The circuit court conducted a hearing on the motion for relief on July 17, 2024, and denied

it. Endsley filed a notice of appeal on July 17, 2024.

3 ¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 11 Before turning to Endsley’s arguments on appeal, we must address Endsley’s motion to

supplement the record on appeal. We grant the motion to supplement the record on appeal with

the transcript of the hearing on the motion for relief held on July 17, 2024.

¶ 12 Turning to Endsley’s argument on appeal, he argues that the circuit court’s order revoking

his pretrial release should be vacated because the hearing on the petition to revoke was not held

within 72 hours of the State filing the petition. The State counters that Endsley waived this

argument by failing to include it in his motion for relief.

¶ 13 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h) governs appeals from orders imposing conditions of

release, granting or denying a petition to deny pretrial release, or revoking or refusing to revoke

pretrial release. Rule 604(h) provides, inter alia, that:

“(2) Motion for Relief. As a prerequisite to appeal, the party taking the appeal shall

first present to the trial court a written motion requesting the same relief to be sought on

appeal and the grounds for such relief. The trial court shall promptly hear and decide the

motion for relief. Upon appeal, any issues not raised in the motion for relief, other than

errors occurring for the first time at the hearing on the motion for relief, shall be deemed

waived.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)(2) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024).

¶ 14 Illinois Supreme Court rules “ ‘have the force of law’ and are ‘not aspirational.’ ” People

v. Shunick, 2024 IL 129244, ¶ 22 (quoting Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 2d 204, 210 (1995)). “When a

rule is ‘plain and unambiguous, we may not depart from [its] terms by reading into it exceptions,

limitations, or conditions [the supreme court] did not express, nor may we add provisions not found

in the [rule].’ ” Id. (quoting Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186, ¶ 24).

4 ¶ 15 Our supreme court, by rule, has clearly stated that “any issue not raised in the motion for

relief, other than errors occurring for the first time at the hearing on the motion for relief, shall be

deemed waived.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)(2) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024). In the present matter, Endsley’s

motion for relief did not raise the issue of timeliness of the hearing, as such we shall deem it

waived.

¶ 16 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 17 For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s order of July 9, 2024, is affirmed.

¶ 18 Affirmed; motion granted.