NOTICE 2025 IL App (4th) 250018-U FILED This Order was filed under April 15, 2025 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is Carla Bender not precedent except in the NO. 4-25-0018 th 4 District Appellate limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Livingston County CRAIG L. MAY, ) No. 24CF147 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Jennifer H. Bauknecht, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Grischow and Cavanagh concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The trial court did not err in revoking defendant’s pretrial release.
¶2 Defendant, Craig L. May, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his pretrial
release under section 110-6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/110-6 (West
2022)), hereinafter as amended by Public Acts 101-652, § 10-255 and 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan.
1, 2023), commonly known as the Pretrial Fairness Act. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 In June 2024, defendant was charged with resisting a peace officer (720 ILCS
5/31-1(a) (West 2022)), a Class 4 felony, criminal trespass to a residence (id. § 5/19-4(a)(1)), a
Class A misdemeanor, and two counts of criminal damage to property (id. § 5/21-1), Class A
misdemeanors. ¶5 The same day he was charged, defendant was granted pretrial release with
mandatory and discretionary conditions. Among the conditions set upon defendant’s pretrial
release were orders defendant must appear for court hearings, submit to orders and the process of
the court, not violate any criminal statute, and report weekly to the Office of Statewide Pretrial
Services. Defendant signed a certification acknowledging the conditions of his release.
¶6 On December 10, 2024, the State filed a petition to revoke defendant’s pretrial
release. According to the petition, defendant, while on pretrial release for a felony or Class A
misdemeanor, was charged in Livingston County case No. 24-CF-331 with unlawful delivery of
a controlled substance (id. § 570/401(d)(i)) and unlawful delivery of methamphetamine (less
than five grams) (id. § 646/55(a)(1)). The State attached to its petition a “Pretrial Violation
Report.” The record contains two pretrial violation reports. One includes the above-mentioned
drug offenses. The other, dated October 30, 2024, shows defendant violated the pretrial-release
order by failing to report consistently on a weekly basis to pretrial services. On August 20, 2024,
pretrial services called defendant, advising him he needed to check in consistently. Defendant
appeared for his court date but did not report to the pretrial service officer. On August 29, 2024,
pretrial services sent defendant a letter for a September 3 office appointment. Defendant did not
appear for the appointment or contact the pretrial service officer to provide a reason for his
absence. On September 11, 2024, another letter was sent to defendant, advising him of an office
appointment due to his missing check-ins. Defendant did not appear for the appointment or
otherwise contact the officer.
¶7 The trial court held a hearing on the State’s petition. The court began the hearing
by asking the State to present evidence showing probable cause on the charges in case No. 24-
CF-331. According to the State, the Livingston County Sheriff’s Office conducted a controlled
-2- buy of 20.2 grams of psilocybin mushrooms from defendant on October 31, 2024. Another
controlled buy from defendant occurred on November 25, 2024, when defendant sold 0.3 grams
of methamphetamine to a controlled source. The State proffered evidence showing defendant had
been on pretrial release since June 3, 2024, and was on pretrial release when the two controlled
purchases occurred. Defense counsel stated defendant wanted to inform the court he was
anticipating receiving $15,000 from a pending lawsuit involving a car accident. Defendant
worked sporadically for a neighbor doing yardwork. He also wanted the court to know he “will
try to comply with all pretrial release orders.”
¶8 The trial court, at the hearing, noted it would review the pretrial investigation
reports in both cases. The record contains the June 2024 pretrial investigation report. The pretrial
investigation report in case No. 24-CF-331 does not appear in the record. According to the June
2024 pretrial investigation report, defendant resided with his father. Defendant’s driver’s license
expired, but he had transportation to and from court. Defendant worked full-time at
“Weathersby’s” in Pontiac, Illinois. Defendant also reported he had been working full-time for
two weeks for a lawn-care business. Defendant denied having issues related to drug use, mental
health, or medical issues. He scored 5 out of 14 on the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment
Instrument-Revised (VPRAI-R).
¶9 The pretrial investigation report further indicates defendant’s somewhat lengthy
criminal history. Defendant’s most recent offense at that time was “aggravated battery/nurse”
(720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(d)(11) (West 2020)). The disposition date is listed as May 15, 2023. He
was sentenced to 24 months’ probation. Defendant’s record also includes a 2020 conviction for
driving on a suspended license, a 2016 conviction for robbery, a 2015 conviction for criminal
damage to property under $300, a 2015 conviction for theft under $500, a 2014 conviction for
-3- possession of a controlled substance, and 2013 convictions for battery and theft. Before 2014,
defendant had two probation sentences terminated as “unsatisfied.”
¶ 10 The trial court granted the State’s petition to revoke defendant’s pretrial release.
The court, presumably referring to the pretrial investigation report in case No. 24-CF-331, of
which it expressly took judicial notice, found defendant had a VPRAI-R score of 5 out of 14.
The court emphasized defendant’s “pretty lengthy” criminal record and the fact defendant was
on probation when he was charged with the offenses in both cases. The court found defendant
had failed to comply with the conditions of his pretrial release, despite the efforts of pretrial
services. The court concluded the State proved by clear and convincing evidence no conditions
of release could reasonably ensure defendant would not be charged with a subsequent felony or
Class A misdemeanor.
¶ 11 On December 24, 2024, defendant filed his motion for relief, asking the trial court
to reconsider its findings and vacate its order revoking his pretrial release. Defendant argued
conditions, such as electronic monitoring and weekly check-ins with the office of pretrial
services, would reasonably ensure his appearance for later hearings and prevent him from being
charged with a later felony or Class A misdemeanor.
¶ 12 On January 7, 2025, the trial court denied defendant’s motion for relief.
¶ 13 This appeal followed.
¶ 14 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 15 On appeal, defendant filed a notice in lieu of memorandum in compliance with
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(7) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024), electing to stand on the argument
asserted in his motion for relief.
¶ 16 All criminal defendants are entitled to pretrial release.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE 2025 IL App (4th) 250018-U FILED This Order was filed under April 15, 2025 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is Carla Bender not precedent except in the NO. 4-25-0018 th 4 District Appellate limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Livingston County CRAIG L. MAY, ) No. 24CF147 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Jennifer H. Bauknecht, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Grischow and Cavanagh concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The trial court did not err in revoking defendant’s pretrial release.
¶2 Defendant, Craig L. May, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his pretrial
release under section 110-6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/110-6 (West
2022)), hereinafter as amended by Public Acts 101-652, § 10-255 and 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan.
1, 2023), commonly known as the Pretrial Fairness Act. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 In June 2024, defendant was charged with resisting a peace officer (720 ILCS
5/31-1(a) (West 2022)), a Class 4 felony, criminal trespass to a residence (id. § 5/19-4(a)(1)), a
Class A misdemeanor, and two counts of criminal damage to property (id. § 5/21-1), Class A
misdemeanors. ¶5 The same day he was charged, defendant was granted pretrial release with
mandatory and discretionary conditions. Among the conditions set upon defendant’s pretrial
release were orders defendant must appear for court hearings, submit to orders and the process of
the court, not violate any criminal statute, and report weekly to the Office of Statewide Pretrial
Services. Defendant signed a certification acknowledging the conditions of his release.
¶6 On December 10, 2024, the State filed a petition to revoke defendant’s pretrial
release. According to the petition, defendant, while on pretrial release for a felony or Class A
misdemeanor, was charged in Livingston County case No. 24-CF-331 with unlawful delivery of
a controlled substance (id. § 570/401(d)(i)) and unlawful delivery of methamphetamine (less
than five grams) (id. § 646/55(a)(1)). The State attached to its petition a “Pretrial Violation
Report.” The record contains two pretrial violation reports. One includes the above-mentioned
drug offenses. The other, dated October 30, 2024, shows defendant violated the pretrial-release
order by failing to report consistently on a weekly basis to pretrial services. On August 20, 2024,
pretrial services called defendant, advising him he needed to check in consistently. Defendant
appeared for his court date but did not report to the pretrial service officer. On August 29, 2024,
pretrial services sent defendant a letter for a September 3 office appointment. Defendant did not
appear for the appointment or contact the pretrial service officer to provide a reason for his
absence. On September 11, 2024, another letter was sent to defendant, advising him of an office
appointment due to his missing check-ins. Defendant did not appear for the appointment or
otherwise contact the officer.
¶7 The trial court held a hearing on the State’s petition. The court began the hearing
by asking the State to present evidence showing probable cause on the charges in case No. 24-
CF-331. According to the State, the Livingston County Sheriff’s Office conducted a controlled
-2- buy of 20.2 grams of psilocybin mushrooms from defendant on October 31, 2024. Another
controlled buy from defendant occurred on November 25, 2024, when defendant sold 0.3 grams
of methamphetamine to a controlled source. The State proffered evidence showing defendant had
been on pretrial release since June 3, 2024, and was on pretrial release when the two controlled
purchases occurred. Defense counsel stated defendant wanted to inform the court he was
anticipating receiving $15,000 from a pending lawsuit involving a car accident. Defendant
worked sporadically for a neighbor doing yardwork. He also wanted the court to know he “will
try to comply with all pretrial release orders.”
¶8 The trial court, at the hearing, noted it would review the pretrial investigation
reports in both cases. The record contains the June 2024 pretrial investigation report. The pretrial
investigation report in case No. 24-CF-331 does not appear in the record. According to the June
2024 pretrial investigation report, defendant resided with his father. Defendant’s driver’s license
expired, but he had transportation to and from court. Defendant worked full-time at
“Weathersby’s” in Pontiac, Illinois. Defendant also reported he had been working full-time for
two weeks for a lawn-care business. Defendant denied having issues related to drug use, mental
health, or medical issues. He scored 5 out of 14 on the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment
Instrument-Revised (VPRAI-R).
¶9 The pretrial investigation report further indicates defendant’s somewhat lengthy
criminal history. Defendant’s most recent offense at that time was “aggravated battery/nurse”
(720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(d)(11) (West 2020)). The disposition date is listed as May 15, 2023. He
was sentenced to 24 months’ probation. Defendant’s record also includes a 2020 conviction for
driving on a suspended license, a 2016 conviction for robbery, a 2015 conviction for criminal
damage to property under $300, a 2015 conviction for theft under $500, a 2014 conviction for
-3- possession of a controlled substance, and 2013 convictions for battery and theft. Before 2014,
defendant had two probation sentences terminated as “unsatisfied.”
¶ 10 The trial court granted the State’s petition to revoke defendant’s pretrial release.
The court, presumably referring to the pretrial investigation report in case No. 24-CF-331, of
which it expressly took judicial notice, found defendant had a VPRAI-R score of 5 out of 14.
The court emphasized defendant’s “pretty lengthy” criminal record and the fact defendant was
on probation when he was charged with the offenses in both cases. The court found defendant
had failed to comply with the conditions of his pretrial release, despite the efforts of pretrial
services. The court concluded the State proved by clear and convincing evidence no conditions
of release could reasonably ensure defendant would not be charged with a subsequent felony or
Class A misdemeanor.
¶ 11 On December 24, 2024, defendant filed his motion for relief, asking the trial court
to reconsider its findings and vacate its order revoking his pretrial release. Defendant argued
conditions, such as electronic monitoring and weekly check-ins with the office of pretrial
services, would reasonably ensure his appearance for later hearings and prevent him from being
charged with a later felony or Class A misdemeanor.
¶ 12 On January 7, 2025, the trial court denied defendant’s motion for relief.
¶ 13 This appeal followed.
¶ 14 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 15 On appeal, defendant filed a notice in lieu of memorandum in compliance with
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(7) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024), electing to stand on the argument
asserted in his motion for relief.
¶ 16 All criminal defendants are entitled to pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/110-2(a) (West
-4- 2022). A defendant, however, may have his pretrial release revoked and be detained if he or she
“is charged with a felony or Class A misdemeanor that is alleged to have occurred during the
defendant’s pretrial release.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6(a) (West 2022). A trial court may revoke a
defendant’s pretrial release if the State proves (1) defendant was charged with a felony or Class
A misdemeanor and (2) by clear and convincing evidence, “no condition or combination of
conditions of release would reasonably *** prevent the defendant from being charged with a
subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor.” Id.
¶ 17 Pretrial-release decisions are reviewed either de novo or under the manifest-
weight-of-the-evidence standard. People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 54. According to the
Illinois Supreme Court, the question of which standard applies is determined as follows:
“(1) when live witness testimony is presented at a pretrial detention
hearing, the circuit court’s ultimate detention decision under
section 110-6.1, in addition to any underlying factual findings
supporting the decision, will not be disturbed on review unless
found to be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and
(2) when the parties to a pretrial detention hearing proceed solely
by proffer, the reviewing court is not bound by the circuit court’s
factual findings and may therefore conduct its own independent
de novo review of the proffered evidence and evidence otherwise
documentary in nature.” Id.
Because neither party elicited live testimony at the hearing, our review of the order revoking
defendant’s pretrial release is de novo. See id.
¶ 18 Applying the de novo standard, we find defendant was properly denied pretrial
-5- release. Defendant was charged with two felonies while on pretrial release. In addition, the
State’s proffer provides ample support for the conclusion no condition or combination of
conditions would reasonably ensure defendant would not commit a felony or Class A
misdemeanor while on pretrial release. Defendant has a lengthy criminal history and has
repeatedly shown he will not comply with conditions of release. Defendant was on probation
when the charged offenses in this case were committed and when charged with the drug offenses
that prompted the State’s petition to revoke his pretrial release. While defendant asserts
check-ins with the office of pretrial services is an appropriate condition for release, he has
repeatedly shown he will not comply with such an order. In light of these circumstances,
defendant’s assertion he “will try to comply with all pretrial release orders,” is not convincing.
¶ 19 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 20 We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 21 Affirmed.
-6-