People v. Marine

2025 IL App (5th) 241132-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: April 1, 2025
• Docket: 5-24-1132
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE 2025 IL App (5th) 241132-U NOTICE Decision filed 04/01/25. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NO. 5-24-1132 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for not precedent except in the

Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE limited circumstances allowed the same. under Rule 23(e)(1). APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Coles County. ) v. ) No. 24-CF-536 ) BRYAN A. MARINE, ) Honorable ) Brian L. Bower, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

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

ORDER

¶1 Held: Applying a de novo standard of review, the circuit court’s orders are affirmed.

¶2 This court previously issued its order in this matter on January 27, 2025. On March 20,

2025, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a supervisory order directing this court to vacate the

January 27, 2025, order and consider the effect of its opinion in People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626.

¶3 The defendant, Bryan A. Marine, appeals the September 30, 2024, order of the circuit court

of Coles County that granted the State’s petition to deny him pretrial release and ordered him

detained pending trial. In addition, he appeals the circuit court’s determinations for continued

detainment at each subsequent appearance before the circuit court on October 7 and October 10,

2024. Defendant filed a motion for relief on October 16, 2024, which was denied on October 21,

2024. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal utilizing the Notice of Pretrial Fairness Act Appeal

1 604(h) (Defendant as Appellant) standardized form provided by the Illinois Supreme Court. Ill. S.

Ct. R. 604(h)(2) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024). Defendant filed a memorandum in support of his appeal and

argued (1) that the State failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that no condition or

combination of conditions could mitigate the real and present threat posed by defendant’s release,

and (2) the circuit court “did not make sufficient written or oral findings as required by the Pretrial

Fairness Act.” For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶4 I. BACKGROUND

¶5 On September 27, 2024, the defendant was charged by information with four counts of

aggravated criminal sexual abuse, Class 2 felonies, in violation of section 11-1.60(d) of the

Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/11-1.60(d) (West 2022)) and four counts of child

pornography, Class X felonies, in violation of section 11-20.1(a)(1)(ii) (id. § 11-20.1(a)(1)(ii)).

The same day, the State filed a verified petition to deny defendant pretrial release. The circuit court

held a hearing on the State’s petition to deny defendant pretrial release on September 30, 2024.

The same day, the circuit court entered an order detaining the defendant.

¶6 At the hearing on the State’s petition to deny defendant pretrial release, the State began by

noting that this case was the latest in a series of charges in an ongoing investigation against the

defendant. The State referenced previous cases where the defendant had been charged for

substantially similar offenses involving different victims, all under the age of 18 and in a

vulnerable state. The State argued that one of the victims had a learning disability and “possessed

a lack of maturity for somebody of her age.” The State argued that the defendant is a recruiter for

the United States military, and that he occupies a position of trust and authority. The defendant

used his position as a recruiter to commit the alleged offenses. In this case, the defendant met the

minor victim on Tinder, picked her up from a high school, took her to a recruiter’s office, and

2 received numerous pornographic photographs from her. The State argued that the defendant poses

a threat to not only the victims in these cases, but also to the community at large based on the

specific articulable facts of the case.

¶7 In response, defense counsel argued that defendant acknowledged that he met the victim

in this case on Tinder. Counsel argued that Tinder requires an age verification agreement where

the user agrees that they are over the age of 18. Further, the defendant argued that he observed an

“I.D. that purported to show that she was over the age of 18, and in getting to know her he

discovered that she had a two-year-old child, so he reasonably believed her to be over the age of

majority.” In addition, defense counsel argued that the investigation into the defendant began by

the defendant voluntarily “going to the police” and saying, “I’ve got a problem. I want to talk about

this.” Counsel argued that the defendant does not have access to children and had already been

reassigned “at his own request away from being a recruiter.” Further, counsel noted that the

defendant had already been before the circuit court two previous times for the other cases, and

each time the circuit court determined that the State had not met its burden to detain him.

Moreover, counsel argued that the defendant had been released on pretrial conditions for four and

a half months in the other cases, and there had been no allegation that the defendant had violated

his pretrial conditions.

¶8 In response, the State further argued that his role as a United States military recruiter has

caused his information to be disseminated throughout the local high schools and that there is a

high probability that other individuals have his contact information. In addition, the State argued

that the defendant used the internet to receive the pornographic images from the victims, and the

circuit court cannot craft an order that can reasonably prevent the defendant from accessing the

internet.

3 ¶9 Lastly, defense counsel argued that the defendant is no longer in possession of the phone

he used for recruiting purposes and the phone number is no longer associated with any individual

cell phone the defendant would possess. Thus, there is no opportunity for children at the schools

to contact the defendant.

¶ 10 After considering the State’s proffer and arguments of counsel, the circuit court stated the

following:

“Having considered the proffers, also having considered the Pretrial Investigation Report,

the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the proof is evident or the

presumption great that the defendant has committed a qualifying offense. The Court further

finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a real and present threat to

the safety of persons or the community based on the specific articulable facts of this case.

I further find, and I recognize that this is the third attempt, but I’m certainly not bound by

the previous findings. In my opinion based upon the evidence I find that no condition or

combination of conditions can mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of persons

or community. Accordingly[,] I’m granting the Petition to Deny Pretrial Release. The

evidence in this case shows that the defendant has committed sex offenses against minors.

At least there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that that is likely the case, so for all of

those reasons the Petition is granted.”

The same day, the circuit court entered a form written order for detention, which included a section

where the court can check mark boxes next to factors it found present that support the denial of

pretrial release pursuant to section 110-6.1(h)(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code)

(725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West 2022)). In the detention order, the circuit court checked the boxes

next to (1) the evidence shows that the defendant committed a sex offense; (2) evidence of the

4 defendant’s psychological, psychiatric, or other similar social history tends to indicate a violent,

abusive, or assaultive nature; and (3) the named victim was a minor, an elderly individual, or a

person who suffers a physical or mental disability.

¶ 11 On October 7, 2024, the defendant was before the circuit court for a preliminary hearing

and review of his continued detention. The defendant waived his preliminary hearing and asked

the circuit court to continue the review of his detention to a short status date in order to file

documents in support of his consideration for release. The circuit court granted the defendant’s

request. On October 8, 2024, the defendant filed with the circuit court a “Proffer In Support of

Release or Release With Conditions.” Therein, the defendant argued that (1) he had been released

on conditions in his previous cases; (2) the State did not provide a written proffer for the detention

hearing that occurred on September 30, 2024; (3) defense counsel is unaware of any allegations

that the defendant has violated any pretrial release condition in any case, including the commission

of any new offense; (4) defendant is not aware of any allegations of contact with any alleged victim

since the filing of any criminal charge; and (5) the source material for all charges after Coles

County 24-CF-249 are a result of the defendant’s cooperation with authorities. In addition, the

defendant attached as exhibits the following: certificate of marriage, letter from defendant’s

spouse, medical records of defendant’s minor child, and multiple military records demonstrating

reassignment.

¶ 12 On October 10, 2024, the circuit court heard proffers and arguments on the defendant’s

continued detention. The circuit court, after reviewing the transcripts, proffers, and arguments,

found that continued detention was necessary. The circuit court found by clear and convincing

evidence that the defendant poses a threat to “the general public, and particularly a subsection of

the general public being mid-to-late-teenage females.” In determining whether any condition or

5 combination of conditions would mitigate the threat, the circuit court stated that it had reviewed

the cases tendered by defense counsel, which remanded an order of detention based upon a circuit

court’s failure to articulate or set forth specific reasons why conditions would not act to mitigate

the danger. The circuit court then stated the following:

“In this case, the Court finds that no combination of conditions would mitigate the

risk to the general public and the specific subclass, that being females of a mid-to-late-teen

age.

The Court notes—and when it looks at conditions, the court notes whether a no-

contact provision would be an adequate mitigating factor, whether an electronic home

confinement would be an adequate mitigating factor, whether or not a forbiddance or a

banning from any computer services would act as a mitigating *** factor. The Court finds

that none of these factors, nor a combination of the same, would.

The Court notes in making this decision that in 24-CF-536, the proffer is that the

Defendant utilized a Tinder device to make contact with a young teenage student and that

he obtained, through that contact, photographs of a pornographic nature; that the Defendant

also, in other matters—not that he is being detained on those matters, but the Court must

look towards those as a basis as to why the other combination of factors would not be

sufficient—notes that a position of trust was utilized in the obtaining of sex acts allegedly

and the photographs as well or videos as well.

This Court finds that, based upon the cumulative nature, the Court finds clear and

convincing evidence that a combination of factors would not act to mitigate or protect the

subclass of mid-to-late-teenage females in this matter.”

6 ¶ 13 On October 16, 2024, the defendant filed a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 604(h)(2). In

his motion for relief, the defendant argued the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear

and convincing evidence that 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. In support

of this contention, the defendant argued that he has been on pretrial release in his other cases for

four and a half months and there is no evidence or allegations presented that he has violated any

of those conditions. Further, he argued that no allegation has been made that he has attempted to

contact the alleged victims, or that any criminal offense of any nature has been committed since

the initial charges were brought in May of 2024. The defendant also argued that no written proffer

or affidavit was tendered to the circuit court for the detention hearing on September 30, 2024. In

addition, the defendant argued that the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and

convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions can 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. In support, the defendant asserted similar arguments to those listed

above and reasserted the Tinder age verification argument. Lastly, the defendant argued that the

circuit court erred in its determination that no condition or combination of conditions would

reasonably ensure the appearance of defendant for later hearings or prevent the defendant from

being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. In support, the defendant argued

that he has not failed to appear in court, there are no allegations that he has fled from law

enforcement, and that the State has not proven that he “has not lived a crime free lifestyle since

his release in May 2024.”

¶ 14 The circuit court held a hearing on the defendant’s motion for relief on October 21, 2024.

Defense counsel stood on the motion for relief, stating that “all of the arguments [are] contained

7 within the four corners of the [motion],” and no additional argument was presented. The circuit

court denied the defendant’s motion for relief. On the same day, the defendant filed a notice of

appeal. The Office of the State Appellate Defender was appointed and filed its memorandum for

defendant-appellant in support of Rule 604(h) on December 2, 2024. Additionally, the appellant

filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal with the defendant’s pretrial services report. The

motion was taken with the case; we grant the motion to supplement.

¶ 15 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 16 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h) governs appeals stemming from the enactment of

Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023). See Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 52 (vacating the stay

of the pretrial release provisions in Public Act 101-652 on September 18, 2023). The relevant

portions of Rule 604(h) provide:

“(1) Orders Appealable. An appeal may be taken to the Appellate Court from an

interlocutory order of court entered under sections 110-5, 110-6, and 110-6.1 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure of 1963 as follows:

(i) by the State and by the defendant from an order imposing conditions of

pretrial release;

(ii) by the defendant from an order revoking pretrial release or by the State

from an order denying a petition to revoke pretrial release;

(iii) by the defendant from an order denying pretrial release; or

(iv) by the State from an order denying a petition to deny pretrial release.

(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

8 motion for relief. Upon appeal, 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.

***

(7) Memoranda. The motion for relief will serve as the argument of the appellant

on appeal. The appellant may file, but is not required to file, a memorandum not exceeding

4500 words, within 21 days of the filing of the record on appeal. Issues raised in the motion

for relief are before the appellate court regardless of whether the optional memorandum is

filed. If a memorandum is filed, it must identify which issues from the motion for relief are

being advanced on appeal.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024).

¶ 17 In the memorandum, the defendant identified two issues that he is advancing on appeal:

(1) the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that no condition

or combination of conditions can mitigate the real and present threat, and (2) the circuit court failed

to make sufficient written or oral findings summarizing the court’s reasons for concluding why

less restrictive conditions would not mitigate the real and present threat. When a supporting

memorandum is filed, it becomes “the controlling document for issues or claims on appeal.”

People v. Forthenberry, 2024 IL App (5th) 231002, ¶ 42. “If a memorandum is filed, it must

identify which issues from the motion for relief are being advanced on appeal.” Ill. S. Ct. R.

604(h)(7) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024). The filing of a memorandum reflects that an appellant has elected

to abandon any arguments that were raised in the motion for relief but not also pursued in the

memorandum. People v. Drew, 2024 IL App (5th) 240697, ¶ 21. In addition, “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).

9 ¶ 18 Here, the defendant raised several issues in his motion for relief. Of those issues raised in

the defendant’s motion for relief, only one is identified and asserted in his memorandum on

appeal—whether the State failed to meet its burden in proving that no condition or combination of

conditions could mitigate the threat. Accordingly, he has abandoned the other issues raised in his

motion for relief. Further, the defendant has waived the second issue identified in his memorandum

where the defendant never raised or argued in his motion for relief or before the circuit court that

the court failed to make sufficient written or oral findings, and the error did not occur for the first

time at the hearing on his motion for relief. Thus, the only issue properly before this court on

appeal is the issue of conditions of release.

¶ 19 On appeal, the defendant argues that the circuit court’s September 30, 2024, order should

be reversed because the State failed to meet its burden of proving, by clear and convincing

evidence, that no condition or combination of conditions can 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. Specifically, the defendant argues that where he has no prior criminal history, was on

pretrial release for four and a half months without incident, the charged conduct occurred before

release, and his communications and conduct are heavily monitored by his employer—the United

States military, the State failed to prove that no mitigating conditions existed. In addition, he argues

that the State did not offer any specific evidence to meet its burden to show that no conditions or

combination of conditions could mitigate the threat.

¶ 20 Pretrial release—including the conditions related thereto—is governed by Public Act 101-

652, § 10-255 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023). See Pub. Act 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023) (amending

various provisions of the Act); Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 52 (lifting stay and setting effective date

as September 18, 2023). A defendant’s pretrial release may be denied only in certain statutorily

10 limited situations. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022). To set appropriate conditions of pretrial

release, the circuit court must determine, by clear and convincing evidence, what pretrial release

conditions, “if any, will reasonably ensure the appearance of a defendant as required or the safety

of any other person or the community and the likelihood of compliance by the defendant with all

the conditions of pretrial release.” Id. § 110-5(a). In reaching its determination, the circuit court

must consider (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the

evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the person; 1 (4) the nature and

seriousness of the specific, real, and present threat to any person that would be posed by the

person’s release; and (5) the nature and seriousness of the risk of obstructing or attempting to

obstruct the criminal justice process. Id. The statute lists no singular factor as dispositive. See id.

¶ 21 Our standard of review of pretrial release determinations is twofold. Where the circuit court

is asked to consider the testimony of live witnesses, and make factual findings, such as the State’s

burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence that conditions of pretrial release would not

protect any person or the community, the defendant has a high likelihood of willful flight to avoid

prosecution, or the defendant failed to comply with previously ordered conditions of pretrial

release, our standard of review is the manifest weight of the evidence. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626,

¶ 54. “A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is

clearly evident or if the finding itself is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence

presented.” People v. Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322, 332 (2008). Alternatively, where the parties to a

1 The defendant’s history and characteristics include: “the defendant’s character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past relating to drug or alcohol abuse, conduct, *** criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings,” as well as “whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the defendant was on probation, parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under federal law, or the law of this or any other state.” 725 ILCS 5/110-5(a)(3)(A), (B) (West 2022).

11 pretrial detention hearing proceed solely by proffer or submission of documentary evidence, this

court stands in the same position as the circuit court and may conduct its own independent review

of the proffered evidence, thus reviewing the record de novo. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 54. In

the present matter, the parties proceeded solely by proffer and documentary evidence, so we will

employ de novo review. We have thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal in this matter,

including the initial detention hearing, the subsequent detention hearings, and the motion for relief

hearing. Like the circuit court, when considering whether a pretrial condition or combination of

conditions could reasonably ensure the safety of any other person or the community, we consider

the five factors set out in the Code: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the

weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the person; (4) the

nature and seriousness of the specific, real, and present threat to any person that would be posed

by the person’s release; and (5) the nature and seriousness of the risk of obstructing or attempting

to obstruct the criminal justice process. 725 ILCS 5/110-5(a) (West 2022). No singular factor is

dispositive. See id.

¶ 22 In the present matter, the State’s proffer included, inter alia, that this case is one of many

where the defendant is charged with sex offenses against a minor victim, that there are other minor

victims that were also in a vulnerable state, and that the defendant utilized his position of authority

and trust to elicit contact with the victims and facilitate the charged offenses. In addition, the State

made arguments that the defendant utilized the internet in contacting the victims and receiving

pornographic photographs. The defendant does not dispute that he made contact with the victim

by using the online networking application, Tinder. In addition, the weight of the State’s proffered

evidence is strong where the defendant admitted to officers that he has “a problem” and cooperated

with the investigation. The nature of the charges against the defendant are serious, include sex

12 offenses against a minor, and some of the offenses are nonprobationable. The defendant

deliberately chose to use his position of trust to prey on a specific and vulnerable “subclass of mid-

to-late-teenage females.” Although the defendant had previously been on pretrial release in prior

cases, the circuit court made an individualized finding to deny pretrial release in this specific case,

yet another sex offense committed against a separate minor victim. The circuit court made this

determination while fully aware of the circumstances of the previous cases and after considering

the facts presented, the pretrial investigation report, arguments made by counsel, and the statutory

factors in this case. Further, at subsequent continued detention hearings, the circuit court

specifically considered various forms of possible conditions to mitigate the threat and found that

no condition or a combination thereof could mitigate the threat, and that the “cumulative nature”

of the offenses supported continued detention. Where the State argued that the defendant utilized

the internet to help facilitate the commission of the crime, and that virtually every device in today’s

modern society has access to the internet, we cannot say that the State failed to present “any”

evidence regarding conditions.

¶ 23 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 24 Accordingly, we agree with the circuit court that no condition or combination of conditions

can reasonably ensure the safety of the public and, specifically, the vulnerable “subclass of mid-

to-late-teenage females.” The circuit court’s orders of September 30, 2024, and October 21, 2024,

are affirmed.

¶ 25 Affirmed.