People v. Gutierrez

2025 IL App (1st) 250736-U

Opinion

2025 IL App (1st) 250736-U

FOURTH DIVISION OCTOBER 16, 2025

No. 1-25-0736B

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 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 25CR133 ) GILBERTO GUTIERREZ, ) Honorable ) Eulalia V. De La Rosa, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE LYLE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Ocasio and Quish concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The circuit court’s order denying defendant’s motion for relief and pretrial release is affirmed.

¶2 On December 5, 2024, the State filed a petition for pretrial detention, which the trial court

granted. On March 12, 2025, Mr. Gutierrez filed a motion for relief, and on a subsequent date filed

a supplemental motion for relief. The circuit court denied the motions. On appeal, Mr. Gutierrez

challenges the court’s decision to keep him in custody, arguing the State failed to meet its burden No. 1-25-0736B

for pretrial detention. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of

Cook County.

¶3 BACKGROUND

¶4 On December 5, 2024, the State, by felony complaint, charged Mr. Gutierrez with unlawful

use of a weapon by a felon, aggravated discharge of a firearm, aggravated unlawful use of a

weapon, reckless discharge of a firearm, and aggravated battery with a firearm. On that date, the

State filed a petition for pretrial detention, which the trial court granted.

¶5 During the hearing on the petition for pretrial detention, the State proffered that on October

28, 2024, Saul Sandoval went to visit his girlfriend. As he approached the house from the alley

behind her house, a group confronted him in the alley, which started an argument. Mr. Sandoval’s

girlfriend viewed the argument from her window and saw the men in the group passing around a

firearm until it was given to Mr. Gutierrez. Then, Mr. Gutierrez chased Mr. Sandoval down the

alley into the parking lot before shooting him once in his ankle. Mr. Gutierrez then fled, holding

his waistband. No weapon was recovered. Six days later, Mr. Sandoval positively identified Mr.

Gutierrez in a photograph array. On December 3, 2024, Mr. Gutierrez was arrested.

¶6 In his background, Mr. Gutierrez has a 2020 conviction for robbery, which he was

sentenced to 2 years’ probation, and a 2020 battery, for which he served 206 days in jail. The

probation was terminated unsatisfactorily. He also had a pending charge for possession of a

controlled substance. The State did not note any bond forfeitures. The public safety assessment

tool graded Mr. Gutierrez a four out of six on the new criminal activity scale and a two out of six

on the failure to appear scale.

-2- No. 1-25-0736B

¶7 Mr. Gutierrez proffered that he has a four-year-old daughter and supports his mother. He

also had a full-time job. Mr. Gutierrez asked for the least restrictive conditions.

¶8 The trial court denied Mr. Gutierrez’s pretrial release. The court found that the proof was

evident and the presumption was great that Mr. Gutierrez committed the offenses of aggravated

battery with a firearm, aggravated discharge of a firearm, and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon.

The court stated that Mr. Gutierrez posed a real and present threat to the community since he

chased after the victim and discharged a firearm and as a convicted felon should not be in

possession of a firearm. The court ruled no condition or set of conditions could keep the public

safe.

¶9 On March 12, 2025, Mr. Gutierrez filed a motion for relief. In the motion, he argued that

the State failed to prove the three elements of pretrial detention by clear and convincing evidence

and Mr. Sandoval’s statements were contradictory. On April 7, 2025, Mr. Gutierrez filed a

supplemental motion for relief. In the supplemental motion, Mr. Gutierrez argued that he was not

present at the scene of the crime and that Mr. Sandoval said that someone other than Mr. Gutierrez

shot him and identified three other people in the show up at the scene of the incident. Additionally,

it was alleged that Mr. Sandoval did not identify Mr. Gutierrez or say anything about him shooting

him until November 4, 2024. In response, the State argued that there was no change in

circumstances, which warranted reconsideration of Mr. Gutierrez’s detention.

¶ 10 After a hearing on the motion for relief, the trial court denied the motion for relief. During

the hearing the trial court mentioned surveillance video it previously viewed that showed a portion

of the incident. On April 7, 2025, after the court’s ruling, Mr. Gutierrez filed his notice of appeal.

-3- No. 1-25-0736B

¶ 11 In the original record on appeal, neither party included the surveillance video as an exhibit.

The disposition for this case was originally due on July 12, 2025. On July 9, 2025, the Office of

the State Appellate Defender (OSAD) notified the appellate clerk’s office that it would supplement

the record with the surveillance video. On August 12, 2025, this court filed an order sua sponte

that the surveillance footage shall be filed by August 20, 2025. OSAD filed multiple extensions of

time to supplement the record, and on September 11, 2025, this court granted a final extension of

time to September 30, 2025. On September 16, 2025, the record was supplemented with the

surveillance footage. Accordingly, there was good cause shown for the delay in the resolution of

this case.

¶ 12 ANALYSIS

¶ 13 We note that we have jurisdiction to consider this matter, as Mr. Gutierrez filed a timely

notice of appeal. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)(1)(iii) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024).

¶ 14 Mr. Gutierrez argues on appeal he should be granted pretrial release because the State did

not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was evident or presumption great that

he committed a detainable offense, that Mr. Gutierrez posed a real and present threat to safety of

any person in the community, and that less restrictive conditions were not available to mitigate the

safety risk.

¶ 15 Under section 110-6.1(a)(1.5) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1.5) (West 2022)), a

trial court may deny a defendant pretrial release only if, “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, and the defendant is charged with a forcible felony.”

Moreover, though all defendants “shall be presumed eligible for pretrial release,” the State bears

-4- No. 1-25-0736B

the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that “the proof is evident or the

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

Code; that the defendant “poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or

the community, based on articulable facts; and that “no condition or combination of conditions set

forth in subsection (b) of section 110-10 [of the Code] can mitigate (i) the real and present threat

to the safety of any person or persons or the community” for the enumerated offenses in section

110-6.1(a) of the Code, or “(ii) the defendant’s willful flight for offenses listed in section 110-

6.1(a)(8) of the Code.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e) (West 2022)). Since there was no live testimony,

we review Mr. Gutierrez’s detention hearing de novo. People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 54.

¶ 16 While the surveillance video did not record the shooting, according to the State’s proffer,

Mr. Sandoval’s girlfriend saw the group of people pass a firearm to an individual, who then chased

after Mr. Sandoval before shooting him. Mr. Sandoval identified the man as Mr. Gutierrez. See

People v. Thompson, 2020 IL App (1st) 171265, ¶ 42 (“[A] single witness’s identification of the

accused is sufficient to sustain a conviction if the witness viewed the accused under circumstances

permitting a positive identification.”). While there are questions about the validity of the

identification, since he allegedly previously identified someone else as the shooter, that is a trial

question. People v. Grunin, 2022 IL App (1st) 200598, ¶ 59 (“When faced with conflicting

versions of events, a factfinder is ‘entitled’ to choose among them and is not obligated to accept

the defendant’s version.”). As a result, we find that the trial court did not err by finding that the

proof was evident or presumption great that he committed a detainable offense.

¶ 17 Section 110-6.1(g) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g) (West 2022) states the factors the

trial court may consider when evaluating “whether the defendant poses a real and present threat to

-5- No. 1-25-0736B

the safety of any person or persons or the community. The factors include, in part, “the nature and

circumstances of any offense charged[;] *** any evidence of the defendant’s prior criminal history

indicative of violent, abusive or assaultive behavior[;] *** “whether the defendant is known to

possess or have access to any weapon or weapons;” and “whether, at the time of the current offense

or any other offense or arrest, the defendant was on probation, parole, aftercare release, mandatory

supervised release or other release from custody pending trial, sentencing, appeal or completion

of sentence for an offense under federal or state law.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g) (West 2022).

¶ 18 In this case, Mr. Gutierrez was previously convicted of robbery and unsatisfactorily

completed his probation. Additionally, he was convicted of battery, and when he was arrested for

the case before this court, he was allegedly in possession of a controlled substance. Based on that

information, Mr. Gutierrez has three arrests for crimes involving violence, including two forcible

felonies. The State proffered that Mr. Sandoval walked past this group, which caused a verbal

altercation, leading to Mr. Gutierrez chasing Mr. Sandoval with a loaded firearm and shooting him

in the parking lot of a laundromat. The record does not indicate any relationship between Mr.

Gutierrez and Mr. Sandoval, which is concerning because Mr. Gutierrez allegedly escalated a

verbal exchange into an altercation involving a firearm. Moreover, Mr. Gutierrez as a felon was

not allowed to be in possession of a firearm but was still able to not only obtain one but also fire

it in front of a business where other individuals could have been harmed. There is no question that

based on his record and the proffered facts of the crime, Mr. Gutierrez posed not only a threat to

Mr. Sandoval but also to the community.

¶ 19 Mr. Gutierrez also argues that electronic monitoring or other conditions could have

mitigated the threat. As a felon, Mr. Gutierrez was already given the condition that he could not

-6- No. 1-25-0736B

possess a firearm, which he allegedly violated. This court is aware that Mr. Gutierrez’s probation

was also terminated unsatisfactorily. Mr. Gutierrez’s criminal history shows a lack of regard for

the rules and conditions imposed on him, and thus, we cannot find that there were conditions that

could have been imposed to mitigate the risk. Accordingly, we find the trial court did not err by

continuing Mr. Gutierrez’s pretrial detention.

¶ 20 CONCLUSION

¶ 21 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.

¶ 22 Affirmed.

-7-