People v. Ruiz

2024 IL App (2d) 240098-U

Opinion

2024 IL App (2d) 24-0098-U Nos. 2-24-0098, 2-24-0099, 2-24-0100, & 2-24-0101 Consolidated for Decision Only Order filed May 10, 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)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________

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, ) No. 24-CF-0119, 23-CF-2366 v. ) No. 24-CF-0111, 23-CF-2391 ) RAFAEL RUIZ, ) Honorable ) Clint Hull, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

PRESIDING JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Jorgensen, and Mullen concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: Defendant’s counsel, by requesting to continue the case for the presence of defendant, procedurally defaulted the claim that the 72-hour requirement in which the hearing to revoke must be held was not met. On the basis of invited error, we affirm.

¶2 The only issue on appeal here is whether or not the trial court erred in not holding the

hearing on the petition to revoke within the statutorily required 72-hour time frame. The

consolidated appeals relate to the multiple cases that were connected because of their relationship

with the petition to revoke. No. 2-24-0098 relates to 24-CF-0111; No.2-24- 0099 relates to 24-CF-

2366; No. 2-24-0100 relates to 23-CF-2391; No. 2-24-0101 relates to 24-CF-0119. 2024 IL App (2d) 24-0098-U

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 These related cases began on November 4, 2023, when defendant appeared in court for

case 23-CF-2366 on charges of possession of a stolen motor vehicle and possession of a controlled

substance. He was granted pretrial release with conditions, including not to commit any criminal

offenses. Three days later, on November 7, defendant appeared in court again on case 23-CF-2391

for charges of possession of cannabis. He was again released with conditions, including not

committing any criminal offenses.

¶5 On January 18, 2024, defendant appeared in case 24-CF-0111, the instant appeal, for

charges of felony burglary. He signed a pretrial-release order with the same conditions. On January

19, defendant was charged with a Class 3 felony of burglary and a Class 4 felony of unauthorized

possession of another’s credit card in case number 24-CF-0119. He was again granted pretrial

release. On January 22, defendant was also charged with a Class 2 felony of aggravated battery of

a police officer and a Class A misdemeanor of resisting or obstructing a police officer in case 24-

CF-0134; he was released pretrial.

¶6 On January 24, 2024, the State filed a petition to revoke pretrial release in the four related

cases, including this one but excepting 24-CF-0134. The notice of motion scheduled the hearing

for January 26 at 9:00 a.m. Defendant did not appear on January 26, although defense counsel was

present. The circuit clerk issued summons to appear on February 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.. The hearing

was held on February 2, 2024, and a judgment was entered revoking defendant’s release.

Defendant claims the hearing came too late.

¶7 II. ANALYSIS

¶8 The gist of defendant’s claim in these four consolidated appeals is that the 72-hour time

limit was violated by setting the return date on the February 2, 9 days subsequent to the filing of

-2- 2024 IL App (2d) 24-0098-U

the petition to revoke. See 725 ILCS 5/110-6(a)(West 2024) (requiring circuit courts to hold

hearings on petitions to revoke pretrial release “within 72 hours of the filing of the State’s petition

or the court’s motion for revocation”). Defendant admits that the error was not preserved but

maintains that plain error should apply.

¶9 We have reviewed the report of proceedings for January 26, and the following short quote

establishes that not only was no error preserved, but no error was committed that we should

entertain. Defense counsel stated, “I did try to call Mr. Ruiz and I left him a voicemail and I have

not heard back. At this point, I think he has court coming up in the next week or two for his regular-

scheduled court date. I ask to hold this over until then.” (Emphasis added.) The judge continued

the hearing for 7 days instead of 14 days, when defendant was otherwise scheduled to return.

¶ 10 The State counters that defendant’s claim of error is forfeited, but it does not cite to a case

involving the implications of invited error upon plain error. The fact that defense counsel

requested the continuance invited whatever error is now being claimed as plain error:

“[P]lain error review is forfeited when the defendant invites the error. ‘[A]

defendant’s invitation or agreement to the procedure later challenged on appeal “goes

beyond mere waiver.” ’ [Citations.] * * * That is, under the doctrine of invited error, a

defendant may not request to proceed in one manner and later contend on appeal that the

course of action was in error. * * * Where the defendant invited the error, our Supreme

Court has declined to address any related plain error claim. See, e.g., People v. Patrick,

233 Ill. 2d 62, 76 (2009).” (Emphasis added.) People v. Harding, 2012 IL App (2d) 101011,

¶ 17.

-3- 2024 IL App (2d) 24-0098-U

¶ 11 We hold the continuance requested by counsel invited any error, and therefore defendant

forfeited the review of this issue under plain error. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial

court.

¶ 12 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 13 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County.

¶ 14 Affirmed.

-4-