People v. Grafton

2024 IL App (4th) 231527-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: March 1, 2024
• Docket: 4-23-1527
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE 2024 IL App (4th) 231527-U This Order was filed under FILED NO. 4-23-1527 March 1, 2024 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is Carla Bender not precedent except in the 4th District Appellate limited circumstances allowed IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL under Rule 23(e)(1). OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Sangamon County JESSICA GRAFTON, ) No. 23CF1195 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Christopher G. Perrin, ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Harris and Doherty concurred in the judgment.

ORDER ¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant pretrial release.

¶2 Defendant, Jessica Grafton, appeals the circuit court’s order denying her pretrial

release pursuant to article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS

5/art. 110 (West 2022)), hereinafter as amended by Public Act 101-652, § 10-255 (eff. Jan. 1,

2023), commonly known as the Pretrial Fairness Act (Act). See Pub. Act 102-1104, § 70 (eff.

Jan. 1, 2023) (amending various provisions of the Act); Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 52,

223 N.E.3d 1010 (setting the Act’s effective date as September 18, 2023).

¶3 On appeal, defendant argues this court should overturn the circuit court’s decision

because the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence she poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community and no condition or

combination of conditions can mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or

the community. We affirm.

¶4 I. BACKGROUND

¶5 On December 12, 2023, the State charged defendant with two counts of

aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(a)(1)-(2) (West 2022)), one count of kidnapping (720

ILCS 5/10-1(a)(2) (West 2022)), and one count of unlawful restraint (720 ILCS 5/10-3 (West

2022)).

¶6 The next day, the State filed a verified petition to deny defendant pretrial release

under section 110-6.1 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)). The State alleged

defendant was charged with qualifying offenses, and defendant’s pretrial release posed a real and

present threat to the safety of persons or the community (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1.5) (West

2022)). In support of its petition, the State provided the following factual basis:

“On 12-02-2023 at 1016hrs, Deputies with the Sangamon County Sheriff’s

Office was [sic] dispatched [to] 11805 Bell Fountain Rd. for a well-fare [sic]

check. Deputies made contact with Tracy Chapman *** who was battered and

covered in bleach. The location Tracy was located was approximately a 15 to 20

minute drive outside of Springfield on a rural country road.

Tracy advised she was at 730 Black Ave. in Springfield, IL[,] when she

was punched in the mouth by Angela Gonzalez and [defendant]. After being

battered[,] Tracy was forced down into the basement where Gonzalez and

[defendant] made her strip completely naked. Tracy was then able to put her pants

and t-shirt back on before Gonzalez and [defendant] placed duct tape over her

-2- mouth, tied her hands up with yellow rope[,] and tied yellow rope around her

neck. Gonzalez and [defendant] then dragged Tracy up the stairs by the rope

around her neck and out the back door of the residence. In the drive way was a

Black Dodge Charger backed up with the trunk open. Tracy stated she began to

plea with Gonzaez and [defendant] to not put her in the trunk. The females then

forced her in the back seat of the [C]harger with her face down towards the floor

board. [Defendant] then got in the back seat of the Charger and placed a jacket

over [Tracy’s] head and held her down. Gonzalez then got in the driver seat and

drove off from the residence. Tracy advised that approximately 15 minutes later

the car stopped at a location and Gonzalez got out for a few minutes before

returning. Tracy advised that when Gonzalez got back into the driver’s seat she

could hear the sound of a plastic bag and believed this was when Gonzalez picked

up the bottle of bleach. Gonzalez then began to drive again until reaching the

location where she was found. Upon arriving at that location, [defendant] got out

of the back seat and Gonzalez leaned in and removed the jacket from over

[Tracy’s] face. At that time[,] Gonzalez had what Tracy described as being a gray

semi auto handgun. Gonzalez then placed the gun next to Tracy’s head telling her

she will be killed if she says anything about what has occurred and then struck

[Tracy] in the head with the gun. Gonzalez then pulls her out of the vehicle where

[defendant] helps untie her. Tracy is then pushed to the ground and Gonzalez

opens a bottle of bleach and pours it all over her. Gonzalez and [defendant] then

get back into the Charger, fleeing the scene and leave Tracy lying there.

-3- CCTV video was located in the area of 730 Black Ave that captured part

of the incident. *** On the video you can see the black Charger back up in the

driveway of 730 Black Ave with the trunk open. You are also able to see Tracy

with her hands bound together in between Gonzalez and [defendant] as they pull

her towards the black Charger. Gonzalez and [defendant] can be seen physically

pushing Tracy into the back seat of the Charger through the rear passenger door.

[Defendant] then gets in to the back seat with Tracy. Gonzalez walks around the

rear of the vehicle, closing the trunk before entering the driver’s seat.”

The State’s factual summary further provided defendant was serving a term of probation for

forgery in Sangamon County case No. 22-CF-365 at the time of the instant offenses.

¶7 At the December 14, 2023, detention hearing, The State proffered what evidence

would be presented. This proffer was consistent with the factual basis for the State’s verified

petition. The State further informed the circuit court Gonzalez “implicated *** [defendant] as

being with her,” and another individual “witnessed Ms. Gonzalez and *** defendant batter the

victim.” According to the State, defendant’s actions spoke “very clearly about the

dangerousness,” and considering the conduct involved, the State argued defendant posed “a clear

and serious danger or threat” to the victim. The State reasoned detention was the least restrictive

condition to ensure the victim’s safety because defendant was accused of having committed the

offenses while on probation, which was “indicative that [defendant], if released on conditions of

pretrial release, would violate the order.”

¶8 Defense counsel asserted there was no evidence defendant “did any of the violent

acts like Ms. Gonzalez” and noted defendant had “very little criminal history.” Counsel also

noted defendant was “a 32-year-old who has an 8th-grade education.” If released, defendant

-4- would reside with her fiancé and “would be more than amenable to a drug and alcohol evaluation

and treatment as well as a mental health evaluation and treatment.”

¶9 In determining whether defendant should be released from pretrial detention, the

circuit court considered the nature of the offense, the State’s proffer, and “the current condition,

medical condition of the victim.” And while the court recognized defendant’s lack of criminal

history, it noted “the allegations in this case are troubling and chilling and significant.”

Ultimately, the court granted the State’s petition, finding the State “carried its burden by clear

and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a substantial threat to the public. The proof is

evident and the presumption is great that the defendant did commit a detainable offense, and I

can see no conditions that would mitigate any danger.”

¶ 10 The circuit court then entered a written order denying pretrial release, finding

(1) defendant was charged with a detainable offense and the proof was evident or the

presumption great that defendant committed the offenses, (2) defendant posed a real and present

threat to the safety of any person or the community, and (3) no conditions or combination of

conditions could mitigate the real and present threat. The court also found pretrial release should

be denied based on the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged, the nature of the threat

and the identity of the victim whose safety defendant threatened, the age and physical condition

of the victim, and because defendant was known to possess or have access to weapons. After the

court entered its written order summarizing its reasons for denying pretrial release, defendant

filed her notice of appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(1)(iii) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023).

¶ 11 This appeal followed.

¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS

-5- ¶ 13 Defendant’s notice of appeal indicates the following relevant bases for vacating

the circuit court’s detention order: (1) the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence

defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community and (2) the

State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence no condition or combination of conditions

can mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community. The Office

of the State Appellate Defender, defendant’s appointed counsel on appeal, filed a supporting

memorandum laying out the reasons for reversing the court’s decision. The memorandum also

raised a third argument not presented in defendant’s notice of appeal: the court abused its

discretion because it failed to provide oral or written findings as to why there were no conditions

of release that would mitigate defendant’s dangerousness.

¶ 14 Initially, we note defendant has forfeited the argument raised in the memorandum

but not raised in the notice of appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)(2) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023) (“The Notice of

Appeal shall describe the relief requested and the grounds for the relief requested.”); see People

v. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶¶ 18-19. While forfeiture is not a limitation on this

court’s discretionary ability to review an otherwise forfeited issue (People v. Curry, 2018 IL App

(1st) 152616, ¶ 36, 100 N.E.3d 482), we decline to excuse defendant’s forfeiture here. Thus, we

will not address defendant’s claim that she raised solely in her memorandum, and we turn next to

the arguments defendant raised in her notice of appeal.

¶ 15 All criminal defendants are presumed eligible for pretrial release. 725 ILCS

5/110-6.1(e) (West 2022). Before denying pretrial release, the State must prove by clear and

convincing evidence (1) “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 (2) “no

condition or combination of conditions set forth in subsection (b) of Section 110-10 of this

-6- Article can mitigate (i) the real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the

community.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(2), (3)(i) (West 2022). Section 110-6.1 of the Code

instructs the circuit court to consider “the specific articulable facts of the case” and provides nine

factors the court may consider when assessing the real and present threat allegation. See 725

ILCS 5/110-6.1(g)(1)-(9) (West 2022). If the court determines the defendant should be denied

pretrial release, the court must make written findings summarizing the reasons for denying

pretrial release, including why less restrictive conditions would not avoid the danger posed by

the defendant to any person or the community. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West 2022).

¶ 16 We have held the determination of whether pretrial release should be granted or

denied is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See People v. Jones, 2023 IL App

(4th) 230837, ¶¶ 27, 30. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the circuit court’s decision is

arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable or where no reasonable person would agree with the position

adopted by the [circuit] court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Simmons, 2019 IL

App (1st) 191253, ¶ 9, 143 N.E.3d 833. Under this standard, a reviewing court will not substitute

its own judgment for that of the circuit court simply because it would have analyzed the proper

factors differently. People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11. Likewise, “we will not

substitute our own judgment for the trier of fact on issues regarding the weight of the evidence or

the credibility of witnesses.” People v. Vega, 2018 IL App (1st) 160619, ¶ 44, 123 N.E.3d 393.

¶ 17 Here, defendant has not shown how the circuit court abused its discretion in

finding the State established by clear and convincing evidence she posed a real and present threat

to the safety of the community and that no condition or combination thereof could mitigate the

danger she posed. The record demonstrates the court weighed the statutory factors and found the

State “carried its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a substantial

-7- threat to the public. The proof is evident and the presumption is great that the defendant did

commit a detainable offense, and I can see no conditions that would mitigate any danger.” In

reaching its decision, the court considered the nature of the threat and the identity of the victim

whose safety defendant threatened (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g)(3) (West 2022)), the age and physical

condition of the victim (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g)(6) (West 2022)), and that defendant was known

to possess or have access to weapons (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g)(7) (West 2022)). And while the

court recognized defendant’s lack of criminal history (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g)(2) (West 2022)),

the State pointed out defendant was serving a term of probation at the time of the instant

offenses. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g)(8) (West 2022). The court also considered the nature and

circumstances of the offenses charged (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g)(1) (West 2022)), noting, “the

allegations in this case are troubling and chilling and significant.” In fact, defendant

acknowledges in her Rule 604(h) memorandum “that the allegations in the case at hand are very

serious,” and “there is a legitimate concern about the dangerousness that [she] may pose to both

Chapman and society.”

¶ 18 Moreover, the record contains ample evidence supporting the circuit court’s

conclusion. According to the State’s proffer, on December 2, 2023, Sangamon County Sheriff’s

deputies found Tracy Chapman battered and covered in bleach at 11805 Bell Fountain Road,

approximately 15-20 minutes away from Springfield, Illinois. Tracy told the deputies she was at

730 Black Avenue in Springfield, where she was punched in the mouth by Gonzalez and

defendant. Defendant and Gonzalez then forced Tracy to the basement, where they made her

strip naked. Defendant and Gonzalez eventually allowed Tracy to put her pants and shirt back on

before Gonzalez and defendant duct taped Tracy’s mouth, tied her hands up with yellow rope,

and tied yellow rope around her neck. Gonzalez and defendant then dragged Tracy up the stairs

-8- and out the back door of the residence by the rope around her neck. There was a Black Dodge

Charger backed up with the trunk open in the driveway. After Tracy pleaded with Gonzalez and

defendant to not put her in the trunk, the duo forced Tracy into the back seat of the Charger with

her face down towards the floorboard. Defendant got into the back seat of the Charger, covered

Tracy’s head with a jacket, and held her down. Gonzalez then got into the driver’s seat and drove

away from the residence.

¶ 19 Approximately 15 minutes later, Gonzalez stopped the car and got out for a few

minutes. When Gonzalez returned, Tracy could hear the sound of a plastic bag and believed this

was where Gonzalez picked up the bottle of bleach. Gonzalez began driving again until the three

women arrived at the location where Tracy was found. After Gonzalez stopped the car, defendant

got out, and Gonzalez leaned in and removed the jacket from Tracy’s head. Tracy observed

Gonzalez holding a gray semiautomatic handgun. Gonzalez placed the gun next to Tracy’s head

and told her she would be killed if she said anything about what had occurred. Gonzalez then

struck Tracy in the head with the gun and pulled Tracy out of the vehicle, and defendant assisted

with untying her. Tracy told officers she was then pushed to the ground, and Gonzalez poured

the bottle of bleach all over her. Gonzalez and defendant got back into the Charger and left Tracy

lying there.

¶ 20 Further, video taken from surveillance cameras located in the area of 730 Black

Avenue captured part of the incident. According to the State, the video showed the black Charger

back up into the driveway of the residence at 730 Black Avenue with its trunk open. The video

also showed Tracy with her hands tied in between Gonzalez and defendant as they pulled her to

the vehicle. The video showed defendant and Gonzalez pushing Tracy into the back seat of the

car through the rear passenger door. Defendant can then be seen getting into the back seat with

-9- Tracy, and the video showed Gonzalez walking around the rear of the vehicle, closing the trunk,

and entering the driver’s seat.

¶ 21 Against the backdrop of “troubling and chilling and significant” evidence of

extremely dangerous criminal behavior committed while on felony probation, defendant claims

her assertion of “very little criminal history,” a fiancé, untreated mental health issues—for which

she is now willing to seek treatment—and her promise to stay away from the victim are enough

to overcome the State’s evidence and warrant her release. A criminal defendant’s promise at a

detention hearing to do better is not likely to be given much weight by any experienced circuit

court judge.

¶ 22 Overall, the record supports the circuit court’s determination the State showed by

clear and convincing evidence defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety of any

person or the community and that no condition or combination thereof could mitigate the threat

defendant posed based on (1) the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged,

(2) defendant’s lack of criminal history, (3) the nature of the threat and the identity of the victim

whose safety defendant threatened, (4) the age and physical condition of the victim, and (5) that

defendant was known to possess or have access to weapons. See 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g)(1)-(3),

(6)-(7) (West 2022). Thus, the decision was not arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. There was

no abuse of discretion. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 10.

¶ 23 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 24 For all these reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

¶ 25 Affirmed.

- 10 -