People v. Scott

2025 IL App (2d) 240790-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: March 4, 2025
• Docket: 2-24-0790
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2025 IL App (2d) 240790-U No. 2-24-0790 Order filed March 4, 2025

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). ______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court OF ILLINOIS, ) of Kane County. ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 22-CF-444 ) JAMES E. SCOTT, ) Honorable ) John A. Barsanti, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

PRESIDING JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Schostok and Birkett concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The trial court did not err in denying defendant pretrial release where the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety of the community and that no conditions could mitigate the threat posed by defendant as defendant was known to the victim, police recovered surveillance footage of the shooting, and defendant’s criminal history included attempted murder and weapons convictions. Affirmed

¶2 Defendant, James E. Scott, appeals from the denial of his pretrial release under section

110-6.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)). As

defendant did not file a memorandum, his motion for relief from pretrial detention serves as his

argument on appeal. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)(7) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024). For the following reasons we

affirm.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 Defendant was charged via indictment on August 24, 2022, with armed habitual criminal 2025 IL App (2d) 240790-U

(720 ILCS 5/24-1.7(a) (West 2022)), aggravated discharge of a firearm (id. § 24-1.2(a)(2)),

unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (id. § 24-1.1(a)), and aggravated unlawful use of a

weapon (id. § 24-1.6(a)(1)(3)(C)) arising out of an incident which occurred on March 13, 2022, in

which defendant got in an argument with Jacob Galvin, defendant’s girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend, and

fired a 9-millimeter firearm into Galvin’s van while he was inside it. The incident was captured on

a nearby security camera. A warrant was issued for defendant’s arrest, and he was arrested on

September 20, 2024.

¶5 On September 20, 2024, the State filed a verified petition to deny pretrial release pursuant

to section 110-6.1 of the Code. A hearing was held on the State’s petition on September 26, 2024,

which the trial court granted. On September 24, 2024, defendant filed a motion for relief, which

was denied on October 17, 2024. Defendant timely appealed.

¶1 II. ANALYSIS

¶2 This appeal involves only the review of documentary evidence, and no live testimony was

heard. We therefore review the denial of defendant’s pretrial release de novo. People v. Morgan,

2025 IL 130626, ¶ 22.

¶3 On appeal, defendant argues that the State failed to show by clear and convincing evidence

that he poses a real and present threat to the safety of the community because, “the State relied on

speculation and fear arguing [defendant] obtained a gun and fired it in public.” This argument is

wholly without merit. The State relied on evidence, not speculation. The State presented

surveillance footage of defendant firing a gun at Galvin’s van, positive identification of defendant

by Galvin who had been defendant’s roommate, photographs of bullet holes in Galvin’s van, and

a 9-millimeter shell casing recovered by police. As such, there was clear and convincing evidence

that defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety of the community in that he illegally

-2- 2025 IL App (2d) 240790-U

possessed a firearm and fired it at an occupied vehicle in a residential neighborhood.

¶4 Defendant also argues that the State failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that

no conditions could mitigate his threat to the community because he had a local address, was

gainfully employed, was financially responsible for his three stepchildren, his prior convictions

were in the “distant past[,]” and he had a reliable means of getting to court. We disagree.

Defendant’s criminal history included a 1997 attempted murder conviction, 2004 convictions for

possession of a weapon by a felon and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, a 2012 felony

domestic battery conviction, and “five or six” misdemeanor offenses involving trespass or

domestic battery. Given that defendant’s extensive criminal history includes attempted murder and

weapons charges, and given the specific facts of this case, the State proved by clear and convincing

evidence that there were no conditions that could mitigate the threat defendant posed to the safety

of the community, i.e., the risk that defendant might obtain and use a weapon in the commission

of another violent offense.

¶5 III. CONCLUSION

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

¶7 Affirmed.

-3-