NOTICE 2023 IL App (4th) 230936-U FILED This Order was filed under December 7, 2023 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NO. 4-23-0936 Carla Bender not precedent except in the 4th District Appellate limited circumstances allowed Court, IL under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Rock Island County GUY LENN HAYES, ) No. 23CF708 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Daniel P. Dalton, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE ZENOFF delivered the judgment of the court. Justice Steigmann concurred in the judgment. Justice Lannerd specially concurred.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court did not err in allowing the State to file a responding petition to deny pretrial release.
¶2 Defendant, Guy Lenn Hayes, appeals the trial court’s order denying his pretrial
release under article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/art. 110
et seq. (West 2022)), as amended by Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as
the Pretrial Fairness Act (Act). For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On September 12, 2023, the State charged defendant by information with
residential burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-3(a) (West 2022)) and aggravated battery to a person over 60
years of age (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(d)(1) (West 2022)) based on an incident that occurred on August
19, 2023. At defendant’s first court appearance on September 14, 2023, the trial court determined there was probable cause that defendant committed the offenses and set defendant’s monetary bail
at $100,000, requiring the deposit of 10%. The court ordered defendant to have no contact with
the alleged victim. Defendant did not post bond and remained in detention.
¶5 On September 22, 2023, defendant filed a motion for pretrial release, requesting the
trial court to immediately release him on the conditions that he appear before the court as ordered,
submit himself to the orders of the court, not violate any criminal statute, and surrender all
firearms. On September 27, 2023, 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)), as amended by the
Act. The State alleged pretrial release should be denied because defendant’s release posed a real
and present threat to the safety of any person or persons in the community based on the qualifying
offense of residential burglary (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(6)(Q) (West 2022)). Additional grounds
upon which the State alleged defendant should be denied pretrial release, in both the petition and
at the hearing, were as follows: “Looking at his criminal history, he has previously been convicted
of Robbery 3 times, Burglary 2 times and sent to [the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC)]
7 times. Clearly he cannot follow the law.” In support of its petition, the State provided the
following factual basis:
“On 8/19/23 [the Rock Island Police Department] was dispatched to the
victim’s home. He reports that when he arrived home there was a man, he
recognized as ‘Guy’ in his home without permission. When he addressed ‘Guy’ he
was attacked and beaten. It was learned he gained access to the house by cutting a
screen on the front porch, and kicked the screen door out as he ran out of the house.
The victim is over 60 years old, and suffered multiple injuries to his head, face,
back, and neck. Police ask around who this ‘Guy’ is, and they learn it is Guy Hayes.
-2- A photo lineup was conducted and the defendant was positively ID’d as the
defendant known as ‘Guy’.”
¶6 On October 4, 2023, the trial court held a detention hearing. The State argued that
(1) the residential burglary charge is a nonprobationable offense, (2) defendant is a real and present
threat to the safety of any person or persons in the community, and (3) defendant has an extensive
criminal history, including three robbery convictions and two burglary convictions. The State
recited the factual basis from its motion.
¶7 Defendant argued that the State did not meet its burden of proof based on specific
articulable facts of this case to show a real and present threat to the safety of any person or the
community if he were granted pretrial release. Specifically, defendant argued the State did not
proffer evidence of probable cause that defendant committed residential burglary with an intent to
commit theft. Defendant highlighted the discrepancies in weight, height, and age between the
alleged victim’s physical description of the perpetrator and defendant’s physical characteristics.
Defendant also mentioned his score of 3 out of 14 on the pretrial risk assessment.
¶8 The trial court took judicial notice that defendant was sent to DOC in 2021 for a
minimum of two years on a burglary charge. The court found that the State showed by clear and
convincing evidence the defendant committed a qualifying offense. In addition, the court held that
defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety of other persons since he “cannot seem to
stop breaking the law, and, in particular, going in other people’s homes or buildings or residences.”
The court reasoned that it could not “find any conditions it can set forth to protect the safety of the
public at this time.”
¶9 This appeal followed.
¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS
-3- ¶ 11 Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of
pretrial release. Defendant argues the Code does not allow the State to file a petition to deny release
unless the petition is filed at the defendant’s first appearance or upon the defendant’s “arrest and
release.” In addition, defendant argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to move to strike the
State’s verified petition. Alternatively, defendant argues the court erred in finding the State proved
by clear and convincing evidence he posed a safety threat if released and no conditions could
mitigate that threat. Both the defendant and State filed memoranda with this court.
¶ 12 We find People v. Jones, 2023 IL App (4th) 230837, instructive. In Jones, the
defendant argued, as defendant does here, that the State did not have statutory authority to file a
responsive petition to deny pretrial release where a defendant remains in custody after being
ordered released upon the posting of monetary bail. Jones, 2023 IL App (4th) 230837, ¶ 9. This
court held that “the Code, as amended by the Act, allows the State to seek to modify pretrial release
conditions, which includes filing a responding petition where the defendant moves for pretrial
release.” Jones, 2023 IL App (4th) 230837, ¶ 17 (citing 725 ILCS 5/110-6(g), (i), 110-6.1(a) (West
2022)).
¶ 13 Here, since the State was permitted to file a responding petition under the Code,
our plain error analysis need not go further. Jones, 2023 IL App (4th) 230837, ¶ 24. There was no
error in the trial court allowing the State to file a petition to deny pretrial release, let alone a clear
or obvious error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE 2023 IL App (4th) 230936-U FILED This Order was filed under December 7, 2023 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NO. 4-23-0936 Carla Bender not precedent except in the 4th District Appellate limited circumstances allowed Court, IL under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Rock Island County GUY LENN HAYES, ) No. 23CF708 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Daniel P. Dalton, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE ZENOFF delivered the judgment of the court. Justice Steigmann concurred in the judgment. Justice Lannerd specially concurred.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court did not err in allowing the State to file a responding petition to deny pretrial release.
¶2 Defendant, Guy Lenn Hayes, appeals the trial court’s order denying his pretrial
release under article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/art. 110
et seq. (West 2022)), as amended by Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as
the Pretrial Fairness Act (Act). For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On September 12, 2023, the State charged defendant by information with
residential burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-3(a) (West 2022)) and aggravated battery to a person over 60
years of age (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(d)(1) (West 2022)) based on an incident that occurred on August
19, 2023. At defendant’s first court appearance on September 14, 2023, the trial court determined there was probable cause that defendant committed the offenses and set defendant’s monetary bail
at $100,000, requiring the deposit of 10%. The court ordered defendant to have no contact with
the alleged victim. Defendant did not post bond and remained in detention.
¶5 On September 22, 2023, defendant filed a motion for pretrial release, requesting the
trial court to immediately release him on the conditions that he appear before the court as ordered,
submit himself to the orders of the court, not violate any criminal statute, and surrender all
firearms. On September 27, 2023, 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)), as amended by the
Act. The State alleged pretrial release should be denied because defendant’s release posed a real
and present threat to the safety of any person or persons in the community based on the qualifying
offense of residential burglary (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(6)(Q) (West 2022)). Additional grounds
upon which the State alleged defendant should be denied pretrial release, in both the petition and
at the hearing, were as follows: “Looking at his criminal history, he has previously been convicted
of Robbery 3 times, Burglary 2 times and sent to [the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC)]
7 times. Clearly he cannot follow the law.” In support of its petition, the State provided the
following factual basis:
“On 8/19/23 [the Rock Island Police Department] was dispatched to the
victim’s home. He reports that when he arrived home there was a man, he
recognized as ‘Guy’ in his home without permission. When he addressed ‘Guy’ he
was attacked and beaten. It was learned he gained access to the house by cutting a
screen on the front porch, and kicked the screen door out as he ran out of the house.
The victim is over 60 years old, and suffered multiple injuries to his head, face,
back, and neck. Police ask around who this ‘Guy’ is, and they learn it is Guy Hayes.
-2- A photo lineup was conducted and the defendant was positively ID’d as the
defendant known as ‘Guy’.”
¶6 On October 4, 2023, the trial court held a detention hearing. The State argued that
(1) the residential burglary charge is a nonprobationable offense, (2) defendant is a real and present
threat to the safety of any person or persons in the community, and (3) defendant has an extensive
criminal history, including three robbery convictions and two burglary convictions. The State
recited the factual basis from its motion.
¶7 Defendant argued that the State did not meet its burden of proof based on specific
articulable facts of this case to show a real and present threat to the safety of any person or the
community if he were granted pretrial release. Specifically, defendant argued the State did not
proffer evidence of probable cause that defendant committed residential burglary with an intent to
commit theft. Defendant highlighted the discrepancies in weight, height, and age between the
alleged victim’s physical description of the perpetrator and defendant’s physical characteristics.
Defendant also mentioned his score of 3 out of 14 on the pretrial risk assessment.
¶8 The trial court took judicial notice that defendant was sent to DOC in 2021 for a
minimum of two years on a burglary charge. The court found that the State showed by clear and
convincing evidence the defendant committed a qualifying offense. In addition, the court held that
defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety of other persons since he “cannot seem to
stop breaking the law, and, in particular, going in other people’s homes or buildings or residences.”
The court reasoned that it could not “find any conditions it can set forth to protect the safety of the
public at this time.”
¶9 This appeal followed.
¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS
-3- ¶ 11 Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of
pretrial release. Defendant argues the Code does not allow the State to file a petition to deny release
unless the petition is filed at the defendant’s first appearance or upon the defendant’s “arrest and
release.” In addition, defendant argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to move to strike the
State’s verified petition. Alternatively, defendant argues the court erred in finding the State proved
by clear and convincing evidence he posed a safety threat if released and no conditions could
mitigate that threat. Both the defendant and State filed memoranda with this court.
¶ 12 We find People v. Jones, 2023 IL App (4th) 230837, instructive. In Jones, the
defendant argued, as defendant does here, that the State did not have statutory authority to file a
responsive petition to deny pretrial release where a defendant remains in custody after being
ordered released upon the posting of monetary bail. Jones, 2023 IL App (4th) 230837, ¶ 9. This
court held that “the Code, as amended by the Act, allows the State to seek to modify pretrial release
conditions, which includes filing a responding petition where the defendant moves for pretrial
release.” Jones, 2023 IL App (4th) 230837, ¶ 17 (citing 725 ILCS 5/110-6(g), (i), 110-6.1(a) (West
2022)).
¶ 13 Here, since the State was permitted to file a responding petition under the Code,
our plain error analysis need not go further. Jones, 2023 IL App (4th) 230837, ¶ 24. There was no
error in the trial court allowing the State to file a petition to deny pretrial release, let alone a clear
or obvious error. Moreover, because the State was permitted to file a petition to deny pretrial
release, we cannot say that defendant’s counsel was ineffective for failing to move to strike that
petition. “A defendant’s trial attorney cannot be considered ineffective for failing to raise or pursue
what would have been a meritless motion or objection.” People v. Pingelton, 2022 IL 127680, ¶ 60.
-4- ¶ 14 Defendant’s final argument is that the trial court erred by finding the State proved
defendant was a threat and no conditions could mitigate that threat. In support of this argument,
defendant’s memorandum provides one sentence indicating he “stands on the arguments he made
in the trial court.” Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) requires argument in
an appellant’s brief to “contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with
citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on.” “A party on appeal may not adopt
by mere reference the arguments of his trial pleading.” In re Marriage of Dann, 2012 IL App (2d)
100343, ¶ 9. “There is a well-established principle: A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues
on appeal clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and a cohesive legal argument presented.
The appellate court is not a depository in which the appellant may dump the burden of argument
and research.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864,
¶ 13. In this case, defendant forfeited his final argument by failing to flesh out an argument, cite
any authority, or cite pages from the record.
¶ 15 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 16 For the reasons stated, consistent with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(c)(7) (eff.
Feb. 1, 2023), we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 17 Affirmed.
¶ 18 JUSTICE LANNERD, specially concurring:
¶ 19 I agree with my esteemed colleagues that we should affirm the trial court’s
judgment denying defendant pretrial release. However, I write separately because I do not join in
the majority’s analysis contained in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the majority’s decision.
¶ 20 Pursuant to section 110-7.5 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-7.5(b) (West 2022)), the
State had the authority to respond to defendant’s petition for pretrial release. See People v.
-5- Vingara, 2023 IL App (5th) 230698, ¶ 22; People v. Rios, 2023 IL App (5th) 230724, ¶ 17. As a
result, the trial court did not make a clear or obvious error by considering the State’s petition.
Because the State had the authority to respond to defendant’s petition, defendant was not
prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to move to strike the State’s filing.
¶ 21 I agree with the remainder of the majority’s analysis.
-6-