People v. Phillips

2024 IL App (2d) 230599-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: March 5, 2024
• Docket: 2-23-0599
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2024 IL App (2d) 230599-U No. 2-23-0599 Order filed March 5, 2024

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(l). ______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court OF ILLINOIS, ) of Kane County. ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 23-CF-2670 ) JUSTIN W. PHILLIPS, ) Honorable ) Christine A. Downs, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE MULLEN delivered the judgment of the court. Justice Jorgensen concurred in the judgment. Presiding Justice McLaren specially concurred.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The trial court did not err in granting the State’s petition to deny defendant pretrial release and ordering him detained.

¶2 Defendant, Justin W. Phillips, appeals the December 10, 2023, order of the circuit court of

Kane County granting the State’s petition to deny pretrial release and ordering him detained

pursuant to article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/art. 110

(West 2022)). See Pub. Acts 101-652, § 10-255 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023) and 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2024 IL App (2d) 230599-U

2023) (we will refer to these public acts collectively as the “Acts”). 1 On appeal, defendant argues

that the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the

proof is evident or the presumption great that he committed the offenses charged; (2) he poses a

real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons, based on the specific articulable facts

of the case; and (3) no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate the real and present

threat to the safety of any person or persons based on the specific articulable facts of the case. We

affirm.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 On December 9, 2023, defendant was charged by complaint in the circuit court of Kane

County with: (1) one count of aggravated domestic battery (strangle) (720 ILCS 5/12-3.3(a-5)

(West 2022)), a Class 2 felony; (2) one count of domestic battery (bodily harm) (720 ILCS 5/12-

3.2(a)(1) (West 2022)), a Class 4 felony; and (3) one count of domestic battery (physical contact)

(720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(2) (West 2022)), a Class 4 felony. The complaint noted that defendant had

been previously convicted of domestic battery in Kane County case No. 02-CM-5099.

¶5 On the same day that defendant was charged, the State filed a “Verified Petition to Deny

Defendant Pretrial Release” (Petition). The State urged the trial court to deny defendant pretrial

release pursuant to section 110-6.1(a)(4) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(4) (West 2022))

because (1) defendant was charged with domestic battery or aggravated domestic battery under

1 Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), which amended article 110 of the Code, has been

referred to as the “Pretrial Fairness Act” and the Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and Equity-

Today (SAFE-T) Act. However, neither title is official. Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 4 n.1.

-2- 2024 IL App (2d) 230599-U

section 12-3.2 or 12-3.3 of the Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2, 3.3 (West 2022)) and

(2) defendant’s pretrial release would pose a real and present threat to the safety of any person or

persons or the community. As additional grounds upon which defendant should be denied pretrial

release, the State cited defendant’s criminal history which included (1) pending charges of reckless

conduct and assault (case No. 23-CM-1488), (2) a conviction of possession of a controlled

substance for which defendant was sentenced to 18 months’ conditional discharge (case No. 13-

CF-1323), (3) a conviction of battery for which defendant was sentenced to three months’

conditional discharge (case No. 08-CM-2988), and (4) a conviction of domestic battery for which

defendant was sentenced to 120 days’ imprisonment and 18 months’ probation (case No. 02-CM-

5099).

¶6 The State attached to its Petition a sworn synopsis (Synopsis) drafted by the arresting

agency. The Synopsis provides in relevant part as follows. At approximately 4:28 p.m. on

December 8, 2023, Vickie C. called 911 after previously having hung up. Vickie advised that her

brother, later identified as defendant (date of birth, October 20, 1960), was armed with a handgun

and was threatening her. Based on Vickie’s injuries and statements by defendant, Vickie, and a

witness (defendant’s mother), the officers who responded to the call determined that there was an

argument about food. A physical confrontation between defendant and Vickie ensued. Defendant

followed Vickie into the living room, grabbed her by the hair, and pushed her to the ground.

Defendant took a small table and threw it at Vickie, causing marks to her lower back. Defendant

then struck Vickie, causing multiple marks to the right side of her face. Defendant also placed his

knee on Vickie’s neck, restricting her natural breathing. Once defendant got off Vickie, she

attempted to contact the police, but defendant hung up the phone. Vickie told the officers that

-3- 2024 IL App (2d) 230599-U

defendant threatened to shoot her with a gun while she was calling the police. The officers did not

locate a firearm at the residence, but did find a firearm case in defendant’s bedroom.

¶7 On December 10, 2023, the trial court held a detention hearing. The State presented a

factual basis for this request, which tracked the Synopsis, and indicated that, pursuant to a

supplemental report, defendant threatened to shoot the victim once he was released from jail.2 The

State tendered the Synopsis to the court as well as the police report in case No. 23-CM-1488, a

pending case in which Vickie advised police that defendant threatened to kill his 86-year-old

mother. In addition, the State tendered a petition for an order of protection filed in August 2023

by another sister of defendant, Marilyn D., alleging that defendant threatened to kill Marilyn and

her husband and to burn down Marilyn’s house (case No. 23-OP-1419). 3 The State said that it was

introducing the petition for an order of protection “just to show that *** defendant is not only a

threat to the victim in this matter but to all family household members.”

¶8 In response, defense counsel asked the court to deny the State’s Petition. Defense counsel

asserted that defendant had appeared for every court date in case No. 23-CM-1488. Defense

counsel further asserted that a “Public Safety Assessment Report” showed that defendant did not

have any failures to appear pretrial in the past two years. Defense counsel acknowledged that

defendant resides at the same residence as the victim, but stated that defendant “could reside at his

2 The supplemental report is not part of the record submitted in this appeal. 3 At the detention hearing, the State represented that the petition for an order of protection

was filed by defendant’s mother. However, the only order of protection included in the record

indicates that it was filed by Marilyn. The order of protection also specified that defendant and

Marilyn did not reside together.

-4- 2024 IL App (2d) 230599-U

boss’s house in Aurora.” Defense counsel indicated that the firearm case belonged to defendant’s

stepfather, and she denied that defendant owns or has access to a gun. Defense counsel argued that,

in any event, there are conditions that can mitigate any threat, including moving out of the house,

a stay-away or no-contact order, and a weapons surrender.

¶9 Following the parties’ arguments, the trial court granted the State’s Petition and ordered

defendant detained pending trial. In reaching its decision, the court stated that it had considered all

the factors in the statute, the exhibits proffered by the State, and the evidence submitted by the

State and defendant. Based on the foregoing, the court found that the proof is evident or the

presumption great that defendant committed a detainable offense pursuant to section 110-6.1 of

the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)) and that defendant poses a real and present threat to

the physical safety of both Vickie and his mother. In ruling, the court acknowledged that the

petition for an order of protection was not filed by defendant’s mother or Vickie, but noted that

the allegations in the petition demonstrate “an escalation” of behavior involving other family

members.

¶ 10 The trial court entered a preprinted detention order on the same day as the hearing. On the

form, the court checked boxes to indicate that it had found by clear and convincing evidence that

(1) the proof is evident or the presumption great that defendant committed a detainable offense

pursuant to section 110-6.1(a) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a) (West 2022)), (2) defendant

poses a real and present threat to the physical safety of Vickie, and (3) no condition or combination

of conditions set forth in section 110-10(b) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-10(b) (West 2022)) can

mitigate the real and present threat to the physical safety of any person or persons. The court further

elaborated in its order that its finding that defendant committed a detainable offense was based on

the “State’s filing of charges[ ] and probable cause found from the Synopsis.” Its finding that

-5- 2024 IL App (2d) 230599-U

defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of a specific, identifiable person or persons

was based on “[a]llegations in the Synopsis and [petition for an] order of protection *** show[ing]

an escalation of violence against family members, including victim in this case matter.” Its finding

that less restrictive conditions would not assure safety to the community was based on

“[d]efendant’s case matter, plus the OP, and the current felony matter show[ing] an escalation that

no conditions can ensure the safety of [the] victim and family members.”

¶ 11 On December 12, 2023, defendant filed a form notice of appeal. The Office of the State

Appellate Defender (OSAD) was appointed to represent defendant on appeal. OSAD elected not

to file a memorandum under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(2) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023) (providing

that the appellant “may file, but is not required to file, a memorandum”). Thus, on appeal, we are

limited to the arguments made in defendant’s notice of appeal. The State filed a response in

opposition to the appeal.

¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13 Article 110 of the Code, as amended by the Acts, abolished traditional monetary bail in

favor of pretrial release on personal recognizance or with conditions of release. 725 ILCS 5/110-

1.5, 110-2(a) (West 2022). In Illinois, all persons charged with an offense are eligible for pretrial

release. 725 ILCS 5/110-2(a), 110-6.1(e) (West 2022). Under the Code, as amended, a defendant’s

pretrial release may only be denied in certain statutorily limited situations (qualifying offenses).

725 ILCS 5/110-2(a), 110-6.1 (West 2022). For most of the qualifying offenses, upon filing a

verified petition requesting denial of pretrial release, the State has the burden to prove by clear and

convincing evidence that the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant has

committed the offense (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1) (West 2022)), that the defendant’s pretrial

release poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community (725

-6- 2024 IL App (2d) 230599-U

ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1)-(7), (e)(2) (West 2022)) or a high likelihood of willful flight to avoid

prosecution (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(8), (e)(3) (West 2022)), and that no condition or combination

of conditions can mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community

or the risk of the defendant’s willful flight from prosecution (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(3) (West

2022)). “Evidence is clear and convincing if it leaves no reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier

of fact as to the truth of the proposition in question.” Chaudhary v. Department of Human Services,

2023 IL 127712, ¶ 74.

¶ 14 We apply a two-part standard of review to a trial court’s decision to detain a defendant. We

apply the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard to the trial court’s factual determinations,

including whether the proof is evident or the presumption great that a defendant has committed a

qualifying offense, whether a defendant poses a threat, and whether any conditions would mitigate

that threat. People v. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. A finding is contrary to the manifest

weight of the evidence only if a conclusion opposite that to the trial court’s is clearly apparent.

In re Jose A., 2018 IL App (2d) 180170, ¶ 17. The ultimate decision of whether a defendant should

be detained is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. An

abuse of discretion occurs only if no reasonable person could agree with the trial court. People v.

Williams, 2022 IL App (2d) 200455, ¶ 52. Questions of law and the construction of statutes are

reviewed de novo. People v. Swan, 2023 IL App (5th) 230766, ¶ 16.

¶ 15 On appeal, defendant raises three arguments. First, he argues that the State failed to meet

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

great that he committed the offenses charged. Second, defendant argues that the State failed to

meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he poses a real and present threat

to the safety of any person or persons based on the specific articulable facts of the case. Third,

-7- 2024 IL App (2d) 230599-U

defendant argues 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, based on the specific, articulable facts of the case. We do not

find any of defendant’s arguments persuasive.

¶ 16 Regarding defendant’s first argument, he asserts in his notice of appeal that the State’s

submission of “synopses of cases is not sufficient” to meet its burden of proving by clear and

convincing evidence that the proof is evident or the presumption great that he committed the

offenses charged. We disagree. Section 110-6.1(f)(2) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(f)(2) (West

2022)) expressly permits the parties to a detention hearing to present evidence by way of proffer

based on reliable information. This court has previously held that a police synopsis alone may be

sufficient to sustain the State’s burden. See, e.g., People v. Wesby, 2024 IL App (2d) 230523-U,

¶ 28; People v. Horne, 2023 IL App (2d) 230382, ¶ 24; People v. Mancilla, 2024 IL App (2d)

230505, ¶ 24; People v. Jones, 2024 IL App (2d) 230546-U, ¶ 9; People v. Hilton, 2024 IL App

(2d) 230366-U, ¶ 11. That the statements contained in the Synopsis have not been subjected to

admission under the Illinois Rules of Evidence or to adversarial testing is not fatal, as the strict

rules regarding the admission, presentation, and consideration of evidence do not apply to pretrial

detention hearings. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(f)(5) (West 2022). We further note that the notice of

appeal simply argues that a synopsis “is not sufficient” without providing an explanation. This

bare, conclusory argument has been commonly asserted in appeals involving pretrial detention

hearings, but, without more, is patently without merit. Mancilla, 2024 IL App (2d) 230505, ¶ 24.

¶ 17 Further, we reject defendant’s claim that the Synopsis was insufficient for the State to meet

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

great that he committed the offenses charged. Defendant was charged with two qualifying

-8- 2024 IL App (2d) 230599-U

offenses: aggravated domestic battery (strangle) and two counts of domestic battery (great bodily

harm and physical contact). 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(4) (West 2022). As charged, a person commits

aggravated domestic battery when, in committing a domestic battery, he or she strangles another

individual. 725 ILCS 5/12-3.3(a-5) (West 2022). “Strangle” is defined as “intentionally impeding

the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of an individual by applying pressure on the throat

or neck of that individual or by blocking the nose or mouth of that individual.” 720 ILCS 5/12-

3.3(a-5) (West 2022). A person commits domestic battery when he or she knowingly, without legal

justification, by any means causes bodily harm to any family or household member or makes

physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with any family or household member. 720

ILCS 5/12-3.2(a) (West 2022). According to the Synopsis, Vickie contacted 911 and reported that

defendant was armed with a handgun and threatening her. When the officers arrived, they observed

signs of injury to Vickie’s lower back and face. Based on statements from defendant, Vickie, and

defendant’s mother, the officers determined that Vickie and defendant had an argument which

escalated to a physical altercation, during which, defendant grabbed, pushed, and hit Vickie, and

threw a small table at her. In addition, defendant placed his knee on Vickie’s neck, restricting her

natural breathing and threatened to shoot her with a gun while she was calling the police. This

record was more than sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that the proof is evident

or presumption great that defendant committed the charged offenses. Hence, the trial court’s

finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 18 Defendant next argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and

convincing evidence that he poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons

based on the specific articulable facts of the case. The entirety of this argument consists of a

checked box next to boilerplate language on the preprinted notice of appeal without any additional

-9- 2024 IL App (2d) 230599-U

elaboration. Where, as here, a defendant fails to present any legal argument or authority in support

of his or her claim, we are left with the record itself. We presume the circuit court knows, follows,

and applies the law, unless the record affirmatively rebuts that presumption. People v. Inman, 2023

IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 14. As explained below, having thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal,

we find nothing in it to rebut this presumption.

¶ 19 Under the Code, factors that the trial court may consider in making a determination of

dangerousness, i.e., that a defendant poses a real and present threat to any person or the community,

include, but are not limited to (1) the nature and circumstances of any offense charged, including

whether the offense is a crime of violence, involving a weapon, or a sex offense; (2) the history

and characteristics of the defendant; (3) the identity of any person to whom the defendant is

believed to pose a threat and the nature of the threat; (4) any statements made by or attributed to

the defendant, together with the circumstances surrounding the statements; (5) the age and physical

condition of the defendant; (6) the age and physical condition of the victim or complaining witness;

(7) whether the defendant is known to possess or have access to any weapons; (8) whether at the

time of the current offense or any other offense, the defendant was on probation, parole, or other

form of supervised release from custody; and (9) any other factors, including those listed in section

110-5 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-5 (West 2022)), the court deems to have a reasonable bearing

on the defendant’s propensity or reputation for violent, abusive, or assaultive behavior, or lack of

such behavior. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(g) (West 2022).

¶ 20 In this case, the Synopsis indicated that the nature and circumstances of the charged offense

were violent. At the detention hearing, the State represented that defendant also threatened to shoot

the victim once he was released from jail. Defendant has charges pending against him in another

incident of domestic violence during which he is alleged to have threatened to kill his mother. He

- 10 - 2024 IL App (2d) 230599-U

has several prior convictions (including one of domestic battery), and he is the named respondent

in a petition for an order of protection filed by his sister Marilyn because he allegedly threatened—

among other things—to kill Marilyn and Marilyn’s husband and burn down the couple’s house.

Based on this record of repeated incidents of violence and abusive behavior involving his family,

we cannot say that the trial court’s finding of dangerousness was against the manifest weight of

the evidence.

¶ 21 Finally, defendant argues 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, based on the specific, articulable facts of the

case. In support of this claim, defendant contends that there are conditions that would have

mitigated any potential threat to the safety of the alleged victim. He posits that he could reside in

a home other than the one in which any of the complaining family members live. He also suggests

that he could be monitored electronically or by pretrial services.

¶ 22 The Code instructs that, in determining whether a specific threat could be mitigated through

the imposition of conditions of pretrial release, the trial court is to consider (1) the nature and

circumstances of the offense charged, (2) the weight of the evidence against the defendant, (3) the

history and characteristics of the defendant, (4) the nature and seriousness of the real and present

threat to the safety of any person or the community that would be posed by the defendant’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)(1)-(5) (West 2022). The history and characteristics of the

defendant include his or her “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

- 11 - 2024 IL App (2d) 230599-U

proceedings” as well as “whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, [he or she] was on

probation, parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence

for any offense under federal law, or the law of this or any other state.” 725 ILCS 5/110-5(a)(3)(A)-

(B) (West 2022). In addition, when a person is charged with, inter alia, domestic battery or

aggravated domestic battery, the court may consider additional factors, including (1) whether the

alleged incident involved harassment or abuse as defined in the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of

1986 (750 ILCS 60/101 et seq. (West 2022)); (2) whether the defendant has a history of domestic

violence as defined in the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 (750 ILCS 60/101 et seq. (West

2022); (3) the mental health of the defendant; (4) whether the defendant has a history of violating

the orders of a court or governmental entity; (5) whether the defendant has been, or is, potentially

a threat to any other person; (6) whether the defendant has access to deadly weapons or a history

of using deadly weapons; (7) whether the defendant has a history of abusing alcohol or a controlled

substance; (8) the severity of the alleged incident that is the basis of the alleged offense; and (9) any

other factor deemed by the court to have a reasonable bearing upon the defendant’s propensity or

reputation for violent, abusive, or assaultive behavior, or lack of that behavior. 725 ILCS 5/110-

5(a)(6) (West 2022).

¶ 23 Here, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or

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

person or persons. In its written findings, the court commented on the charges against defendant

and the petition for an order of protection and determined that defendant’s behavior demonstrated

such “an escalation that no conditions can ensure the safety of [the] victim and family members.”

We cannot find that a conclusion opposite that of the trial court is clearly apparent. Moreover,

although defendant recites conditions that may be imposed, he does not explain how the conditions

- 12 - 2024 IL App (2d) 230599-U

would mitigate the risk he poses. Indeed, the conditions defendant proposes—residing outside the

family home and some form of monitoring—are dependent on the ability to intervene once a

violation of the conditions of release is detected. Given defendant’s history of domestic violence,

it is not unreasonable to conclude that these conditions would be insufficient to ensure the well-

being of defendant’s family members. Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that no condition or

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

person or persons was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 24 In short, considering the record before us, we cannot say that the trial court’s factual

findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Moreover, based on the trial court’s

factual findings, we conclude that its order granting the Petition to deny defendant pretrial release

did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

¶ 25 IV. CONCLUSION

¶ 26 For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County.

¶ 27 Affirmed.

¶ 28 PRESIDING JUSTICE McLAREN, specially concurring:

¶ 29 I specially concur because I cannot locate any of the following terms in the draft

disposition: forfeiture, waiver, or procedural default. There is nothing in the record filed by

defendant that cites to the record, to relevant authority, or constitutes a cohesive argument. These

elementary requisites have developed to ensure that this court is not a repository in which to dump

cases, foisting review on this court. Having failed to recognize this fundamental breach of

protocols for an independent, impartial, transparent, and just judiciary, the majority draft sidesteps

the necessity to designate what is a clear forfeiture. The fact that several of the fundamental

elements of proper appellate argument are neither mentioned nor discussed is a deflection that may

- 13 - 2024 IL App (2d) 230599-U

be salutary in the short term, but is a subversion that in the long term will be anything but

constructive.

¶ 30 I submit that all the claims in defendant’s notice of appeal are forfeited:

“ ‘Rule 604(h) requires the notice of appeal to include a description of the relief to

be requested “and the grounds for the relief requested.” ' (Emphasis in original.) [People

v.] Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864 (quoting Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)(2) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023)).

Accordingly, ‘some form of argument is required, along with justification for claiming

entitlement to relief-like references to the record, the evidence presented, or, if possible,

legal authority.’ Id. A reviewing court ‘cannot be expected to formulate an argument for

defendant out of whole cloth.’ Id. ¶ 13. ‘The appellate court is not a depository in which

the appellant may dump the burden of argument and research.’ Thrall Car Manufacturing

Co. v. Lindquist, 145 Ill. App. 3d 712, 719 (1986). As a reviewing court, we are entitled to

have the issues clearly defined, pertinent authority cited, and a cohesive legal argument

presented. Walters v. Rodriguez, 2011 IL App (1st) 103488, ¶ 5.” People v. Forthenberry,

2024 IL App (5th) 231002, ¶¶ 42-43; People v. Jordan, 2024 IL App (2d) 230532-U, ¶ 12.

¶ 31 The majority should have recognized the obvious forfeiture and then proceeded to address

the appeal as they saw fit to remediate whatever they believe is defective under the Acts. Instead,

the disposition creates a standard of review not stated by defendant and then measures that standard

on behalf of a defendant who stands mute. The majority has created an undisclosed exception to

one of the most basic principles of forfeiture in this court. Only the truly enlightened will

understand that the majority’s analysis disregards boilerplate case law for a short term fix. “A

reviewing court is entitled to have issues clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and cohesive

arguments presented (134 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(7) [eff. Oct. 1, 2020]), and it is not a repository into

- 14 - 2024 IL App (2d) 230599-U

which an appellant may foist the burden of argument and research [citation]; it is neither the

function nor the obligation of this court to act as an advocate or search the record for error

[citation]. Accordingly, these contentions are waived.” Obert v. Saville, 253 Ill. App. 3d 677, 682

(1993). I suggest the reader review People v. Derrick Jordan, 2024 IL App (2d) 230532-U for an

alternative, nuanced method to review the appeal in the context of whether or not there was a

forfeiture.

- 15 -