2024 IL App (4th) 230948-U
NOS. 4-23-0948, 4-23-0949, 4-23-0950, 4-23-0951, 4-23-0952, 4-23-0953, 4-23-0954, 4-23- 0956, 4-23-0957, 4-23-0958, 4-23-0959 cons. NOTICE IN THE APPELLATE COURT FILED This Order was filed under January 4, 2024 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is Carla Bender not precedent except in the OF ILLINOIS 4th District Appellate limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Winnebago County STEPHEN DOUGLAS PETERS JR., ) Nos. 21DT237 Defendant-Appellant. ) 21CM554 ) 21CF894 ) 21TR5753 ) 21TR5754 ) 21TR5755 ) 21TR5756 ) 21TR5757 ) 22CM299 ) 22CF364 ) 22CM1470 ) ) ) ) Honorable ) Philip J. Nicolosi, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE CAVANAGH delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Turner and Justice Knecht concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court’s order revoking pretrial release was not an abuse of discretion.
¶2 Defendant, Stephen Douglas Peters Jr., appeals the trial court’s order revoking his
pretrial release pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/110
et seq.) (West 2022)), as amended by Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as the Pretrial Fairness Act. Defendant argues the trial court’s finding that a secured continuous
remote alcohol monitoring (SCRAM) bracelet would not reasonably prevent him from being
charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor was against the manifest weight of
the evidence. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 Defendant was on pretrial release for the following pending cases: driving under
the influence of alcohol, a Class A misdemeanor (Winnebago County case No. 21-DT-237);
causing a child to be endangered, a Class A misdemeanor (Winnebago County case No.
21-CM-554); criminal damage to government supported property, a Class 3 felony (Winnebago
County case No. 21-CF-894); aggravated domestic battery by strangulation, a Class 2 felony
(Winnebago County case No. 22-CF-364); violation of bail bond, a Class A misdemeanor
(Winnebago County case No. 22-CM-299); and resisting a peace officer, a Class A misdemeanor
(Winnebago County case No. 22-CM-1470). On September 15, 2023, while on pretrial release,
defendant was charged with aggravated assault, a Class A misdemeanor (720 ILCS 5/12-2(c)(1)
(West 2022)) in Winnebago County case No. 23-CM-1901. On September 22, 2023, the State
filed a petition to revoke defendant’s pretrial release citing his pending cases and the newly
charged aggravated assault, and it argued no condition or combination of conditions of release
would reasonably ensure the appearance of defendant for later hearings or prevent defendant
from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. A hearing on the State’s
petition was held on September 25, 2023.
¶5 At the hearing, the State summarized a brief history of defendant’s pending
matters. In March 2019, defendant was arrested for driving under the influence. At the time of
his arrest, defendant had his child in the vehicle. The child was not in a child restraint, which led
-2- to the child endangerment charge. While in the back seat of a police car following his arrest for
driving under the influence, defendant damaged a window and window frame of the police
vehicle, leading to him being charged with criminal damage to government supported property.
In February 2022, defendant was charged with aggravated domestic battery for strangling his
cousin. A couple weeks later, defendant was charged with violating his bail bond condition of no
contact with his cousin when he texted her. In September 2022, defendant was in an altercation
with a minor wherein a witness described defendant as “drunk and confrontational.” When police
made contact with him, he refused to obey lawful orders, leading to his resisting-a-peace-officer
charge.
¶6 On September 15, 2023, the State proffered Janessa Zimmerman was at the home
of her boyfriend, Andre Carter, where defendant resides, when defendant, who was intoxicated,
entered her room. Zimmerman told defendant to leave. Defendant later returned with a knife and
began swinging the knife at Carter “four to five times.” Zimmerman called the police. Defendant
became angrier and threatened to kill Zimmerman. Defendant swung the knife at Zimmerman,
but Carter stepped in between them, and defendant dropped the knife. Carter corroborated
Zimmerman’s version of events.
¶7 Regarding defendant’s previous history of court appearances, the State noted
defendant has had “two or more” previous failures to appear. Defendant rebutted that all of the
previous bench warrants after 2010 were recalled by the court. Additionally, there were no prior
petitions to revoke probation or court supervision for defendant’s prior cases.
¶8 Defendant argued the State had not met its burden by clear and convincing
evidence that no conditions or combination of conditions of bond would ensure defendant would
appear for court or prevent him from being charged with a subsequent Class A misdemeanor or
-3- felony. Defendant also offered that the trial court could require him to wear a SCRAM device as
a new condition of pretrial release.
¶9 The trial court noted defendant had posted bond on four separate charges over the
past two years. Each bond sheet indicated defendant was not to violate any criminal statute of
any jurisdiction. Defendant’s pretrial risk assessment indicated he was “Moderate/High Risk.”
The court stated defendant had 15 bench warrants issued for failures to appear. The court found
the State had met its burden by clear and convincing evidence.
¶ 10 The trial court revoked defendant’s pretrial release and amended defendant’s
conditions to include reporting to pretrial services, obtaining an alcohol and drug evaluation, and
having no contact with any alleged victims in any of his pending cases.
¶ 11 This appeal followed.
¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 13 On appeal, defendant argues the trial court’s finding that SCRAM would not
reasonably prevent him from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor
was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 14 Regarding the standard of review, defendant contends we should find the court’s
ruling to be against the manifest weight of the evidence but that is not our standard of review. On
appeal, “we are not reviewing the State’s evidence anew. Instead, we are reviewing the [trial]
court’s evaluation of that evidence for an abuse of discretion.” People v. Inman, 2023 IL App
(4th) 230864, ¶ 11. Therefore, we will apply an abuse of discretion standard. An abuse of
discretion occurs when the decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or where no
reasonable person would agree with the court’s position. Id. ¶ 10.
¶ 15 Section 110-6(a) of the Code states:
-4- “When a defendant has previously been granted pretrial release under this Section
for a felony or Class A misdemeanor, that pretrial release may be revoked only if
the defendant is charged with a felony or Class A misdemeanor that is alleged to
have occurred during defendant’s pretrial release after a hearing on the court’s
own motion or upon the filing of a verified petition by the State.” 725 ILCS
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2024 IL App (4th) 230948-U
NOS. 4-23-0948, 4-23-0949, 4-23-0950, 4-23-0951, 4-23-0952, 4-23-0953, 4-23-0954, 4-23- 0956, 4-23-0957, 4-23-0958, 4-23-0959 cons. NOTICE IN THE APPELLATE COURT FILED This Order was filed under January 4, 2024 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is Carla Bender not precedent except in the OF ILLINOIS 4th District Appellate limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Winnebago County STEPHEN DOUGLAS PETERS JR., ) Nos. 21DT237 Defendant-Appellant. ) 21CM554 ) 21CF894 ) 21TR5753 ) 21TR5754 ) 21TR5755 ) 21TR5756 ) 21TR5757 ) 22CM299 ) 22CF364 ) 22CM1470 ) ) ) ) Honorable ) Philip J. Nicolosi, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE CAVANAGH delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Turner and Justice Knecht concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court’s order revoking pretrial release was not an abuse of discretion.
¶2 Defendant, Stephen Douglas Peters Jr., appeals the trial court’s order revoking his
pretrial release pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/110
et seq.) (West 2022)), as amended by Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as the Pretrial Fairness Act. Defendant argues the trial court’s finding that a secured continuous
remote alcohol monitoring (SCRAM) bracelet would not reasonably prevent him from being
charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor was against the manifest weight of
the evidence. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 Defendant was on pretrial release for the following pending cases: driving under
the influence of alcohol, a Class A misdemeanor (Winnebago County case No. 21-DT-237);
causing a child to be endangered, a Class A misdemeanor (Winnebago County case No.
21-CM-554); criminal damage to government supported property, a Class 3 felony (Winnebago
County case No. 21-CF-894); aggravated domestic battery by strangulation, a Class 2 felony
(Winnebago County case No. 22-CF-364); violation of bail bond, a Class A misdemeanor
(Winnebago County case No. 22-CM-299); and resisting a peace officer, a Class A misdemeanor
(Winnebago County case No. 22-CM-1470). On September 15, 2023, while on pretrial release,
defendant was charged with aggravated assault, a Class A misdemeanor (720 ILCS 5/12-2(c)(1)
(West 2022)) in Winnebago County case No. 23-CM-1901. On September 22, 2023, the State
filed a petition to revoke defendant’s pretrial release citing his pending cases and the newly
charged aggravated assault, and it argued no condition or combination of conditions of release
would reasonably ensure the appearance of defendant for later hearings or prevent defendant
from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor. A hearing on the State’s
petition was held on September 25, 2023.
¶5 At the hearing, the State summarized a brief history of defendant’s pending
matters. In March 2019, defendant was arrested for driving under the influence. At the time of
his arrest, defendant had his child in the vehicle. The child was not in a child restraint, which led
-2- to the child endangerment charge. While in the back seat of a police car following his arrest for
driving under the influence, defendant damaged a window and window frame of the police
vehicle, leading to him being charged with criminal damage to government supported property.
In February 2022, defendant was charged with aggravated domestic battery for strangling his
cousin. A couple weeks later, defendant was charged with violating his bail bond condition of no
contact with his cousin when he texted her. In September 2022, defendant was in an altercation
with a minor wherein a witness described defendant as “drunk and confrontational.” When police
made contact with him, he refused to obey lawful orders, leading to his resisting-a-peace-officer
charge.
¶6 On September 15, 2023, the State proffered Janessa Zimmerman was at the home
of her boyfriend, Andre Carter, where defendant resides, when defendant, who was intoxicated,
entered her room. Zimmerman told defendant to leave. Defendant later returned with a knife and
began swinging the knife at Carter “four to five times.” Zimmerman called the police. Defendant
became angrier and threatened to kill Zimmerman. Defendant swung the knife at Zimmerman,
but Carter stepped in between them, and defendant dropped the knife. Carter corroborated
Zimmerman’s version of events.
¶7 Regarding defendant’s previous history of court appearances, the State noted
defendant has had “two or more” previous failures to appear. Defendant rebutted that all of the
previous bench warrants after 2010 were recalled by the court. Additionally, there were no prior
petitions to revoke probation or court supervision for defendant’s prior cases.
¶8 Defendant argued the State had not met its burden by clear and convincing
evidence that no conditions or combination of conditions of bond would ensure defendant would
appear for court or prevent him from being charged with a subsequent Class A misdemeanor or
-3- felony. Defendant also offered that the trial court could require him to wear a SCRAM device as
a new condition of pretrial release.
¶9 The trial court noted defendant had posted bond on four separate charges over the
past two years. Each bond sheet indicated defendant was not to violate any criminal statute of
any jurisdiction. Defendant’s pretrial risk assessment indicated he was “Moderate/High Risk.”
The court stated defendant had 15 bench warrants issued for failures to appear. The court found
the State had met its burden by clear and convincing evidence.
¶ 10 The trial court revoked defendant’s pretrial release and amended defendant’s
conditions to include reporting to pretrial services, obtaining an alcohol and drug evaluation, and
having no contact with any alleged victims in any of his pending cases.
¶ 11 This appeal followed.
¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 13 On appeal, defendant argues the trial court’s finding that SCRAM would not
reasonably prevent him from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor
was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 14 Regarding the standard of review, defendant contends we should find the court’s
ruling to be against the manifest weight of the evidence but that is not our standard of review. On
appeal, “we are not reviewing the State’s evidence anew. Instead, we are reviewing the [trial]
court’s evaluation of that evidence for an abuse of discretion.” People v. Inman, 2023 IL App
(4th) 230864, ¶ 11. Therefore, we will apply an abuse of discretion standard. An abuse of
discretion occurs when the decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or where no
reasonable person would agree with the court’s position. Id. ¶ 10.
¶ 15 Section 110-6(a) of the Code states:
-4- “When a defendant has previously been granted pretrial release under this Section
for a felony or Class A misdemeanor, that pretrial release may be revoked only if
the defendant is charged with a felony or Class A misdemeanor that is alleged to
have occurred during defendant’s pretrial release after a hearing on the court’s
own motion or upon the filing of a verified petition by the State.” 725 ILCS
5/110-6(a) (West 2022).
¶ 16 Here, defendant was previously charged with criminal damage to government
supported property and aggravated domestic battery, both felonies, and defendant’s remaining
pending cases were all Class A misdemeanors. Defendant posted bond on several of these cases.
While on pretrial release, defendant was charged with a subsequent Class A misdemeanor for
aggravated assault. 720 ILCS 5/12-2(c)(1) (West 2022).
¶ 17 Defendant argues the impetus for the State’s petition from its proffer involves his
alcohol consumption, which led to his alleged violent behavior. Based on the State’s arguments
at the hearing, defendant contends the State offered no arguments or evidence and the trial court
did not explicitly address whether SCRAM could reasonably prevent him from being charged
with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor.
¶ 18 We find defendant’s arguments unpersuasive. As defendant notes in his
memorandum to this court, SCRAM cannot physically prevent him from drinking, nor from
committing new offenses. SCRAM can only alert law enforcement when defendant has been
drinking alcohol. Additionally, defendant’s pretrial release conditions were not that he refrain
from drinking alcohol but that he not violate any criminal statute of any jurisdiction. Defendant,
while on pretrial release, continued to be charged with new offenses, including the most recent
aggravated assault, which was the basis for the State’s petition to revoke his pretrial release.
-5- ¶ 19 Furthermore, nothing in section 110-6(a) required the trial court to explicitly
address or provide specific reasons for rejecting defendant’s argument for SCRAM. The court
was required to “consider all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the nature and
seriousness of the violation or criminal act alleged.” 725 ILCS 110-6(a) (West 2022); see People
v. Smith, 2023 IL App (1st) 231756-U, ¶ 21 (“[T]he text of [section 110-6(a)] requires only that
the trial court consider all relevant circumstances in making its decision.” (Emphasis in
original.)). Defendant provides no reason to suggest the court did not consider SCRAM as a
potential condition of continued pretrial release. “We presume the [trial] court knows, follows,
and applies the law, unless the record affirmatively rebuts that presumption.” Inman, 2023 IL
App (4th) 230864, ¶ 14.
¶ 20 Because defendant has provided this court with no basis for finding the trial
court’s conclusions were arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, we find the court’s revocation of
defendant’s pretrial release was not an abuse of discretion.
¶ 21 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 22 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the cause for
further proceedings.
¶ 23 Affirmed; cause remanded.
-6-