People v. Tolbert

2025 IL App (1st) 251814-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: December 11, 2025
• Docket: 1-25-1814
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2025 IL App (1st) 251814-U

FOURTH DIVISION Order filed: December 11, 2025

No. 1-25-1814B

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 25 CR 6885 ) KATHLEEN TOLBERT, ) Honorable ) Neera Walsh, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE QUISH delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Lyle and Ocasio concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: Defendant’s appeal from an order denying her motion for pretrial release is dismissed because she failed to file the requisite motion for relief in the circuit court, as required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(2).

¶2 The defendant, Kathleen Tolbert, appeals the denial of a motion for pretrial release filed

under section 110-6.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, commonly referred to as the Pretrial

Fairness Act (“Act”) (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2024)). Because she failed to file the requisite No. 1-25-1814B

motion for relief under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(2) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024) prior to initiating

this appeal, we dismiss her appeal.

¶3 Our disposition of this appeal requires only a brief recitation of the facts. According to the

State’s proffer, on May 25, 2025, defendant was arrested and charged with one count of aggravated

battery with a deadly weapon and one count of reckless discharge of a firearm. The charges

stemmed from an incident in which defendant had a verbal argument with the complaining witness

over a man with whom they both had a relationship. Both women lived in the same apartment

complex. After a verbal altercation outside of defendant’s apartment, defendant went back into her

apartment and the complaining witness went outside into the courtyard. Defendant retrieved a

firearm from her apartment and came downstairs into the vestibule. A physical altercation then

ensued between the complaining witness and defendant, and defendant hit her multiple times with

her firearm. The complaining witness did not have a weapon. One of those blows caused

defendant’s firearm to discharge and strike the complaining witness in the neck, causing injuries.

Defendant claims she was acting in self-defense.

¶4 On May 27, 2025, the State filed a petition for pretrial detention seeking to have defendant

detained on the grounds that she posed a threat to the safety of a person or the community.

Following a detention hearing, the court found that the State had shown by clear and convincing

evidence that the proof was evident or the presumption great that defendant committed the charged

offenses, she posed a real and present threat to the safety of a specific person or persons or the

community, and no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the threat posed by

defendant. The court detained defendant pending trial.

-2- No. 1-25-1814B

¶5 Three months later, on August 27, 2025, defendant filed a “Motion for Pretrial Release” in

which she recounted her personal history and her version of the facts of the incident. She asserted,

as the entirety of her argument, that, if released, she would no longer live near the complaining

witness and that “[t]he facts of this case as well as [defendant’s] social history including her lack

of prior criminal background as well as her impressive employment history and academic

accomplishments all show that she is not a threat to any person or the community, and that

continued detention is not necessary.” The motion did not cite any rule or statute or refer to or

challenge the circuit court’s prior decision granting the State’s petition for pretrial detention.

¶6 That same day, the court held a hearing on defendant’s motion. Defendant then presented

her case for pretrial release, reciting her personal history and arguing that the facts of the case

demonstrated mitigating circumstances. She noted that this was a reconsideration motion and

alleged that she no longer had her apartment and had no plans to return to that apartment complex.

She asked the court to release her with any conditions the court deemed appropriate. As in her

written motion, defendant did not allege any errors in the court’s prior detention ruling.

¶7 The court denied defendant’s motion, finding that continued detention was necessary to

protect the complaining witness or the community. The court then informed defendant that,

“[b]efore an appeal, you must file a motion for relief that sets out the grounds for relief” and that

“[a]fter disposition of the motion for relief, you have a right to appeal this court’s order at any time

before a conviction.” Defendant indicated that she understood her appeal rights. Defendant then

filed a notice of appeal without filing another motion in the circuit court.

¶8 On appeal, defendant argues that the State failed to meet its burden to show that no

conditions could mitigate the threat that she allegedly posed to the complaining witness or the

-3- No. 1-25-1814B

community. The State responds that this appeal must be dismissed because defendant never filed

a motion for relief as required by Rule 604(h)(2). As explained below, we agree with the State that

defendant did not satisfy the procedural requirements for appealing the denial of pretrial release

and, thus, we must dismiss this appeal.

¶9 Rule 604(h)(2) provides that, “[a]s a prerequisite to appeal,” the party appealing an order

denying pretrial release must file a motion for relief setting forth the relief sought on appeal and

the grounds for such relief. See People v. Cooksey, 2024 IL App (1st) 240932, ¶ 17. At different

points in her appellate memorandum, defendant refers to her August 27, 2025, motion as either a

“motion for pretrial release” or a “motion for relief.” However, based on the specific facts of this

case, we find that defendant’s “Motion for Pretrial Release” cannot be construed as a motion for

relief under Rule 604(h)(2).

¶ 10 When a defendant has been detained pending trial, the court is obligated to reconsider that

detention decision at every subsequent court appearance. People v. Patterson, 2025 IL App (1st)

250510, ¶¶ 11-13; see also 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(i-5) (West 2024). Prior to such a hearing, a

defendant may, but is not obligated to, file a written motion for pretrial release articulating why

continued detention is not necessary or appropriate. Patterson, 2025 IL App (1st) 250510, ¶ 16. A

motion for relief, on the other hand, serves a different function. It allows the defendant to “identify

errors in the circuit court’s detention decision,” “give[s] the court the chance to correct any errors

and potentially change its ruling in the movant’s favor,” and “crystallizes and frames the issues for

appeal.” Id. ¶¶ 18-19. Indeed, the motion for relief serves as the argument for the appellant on

appeal. Id. ¶ 19 (citing Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)(7)).

-4- No. 1-25-1814B

¶ 11 This case is similar to Patterson. In Patterson, the court ordered the defendant detained at

his first appearance. Id. ¶ 5. Nearly a year and a half later, the defendant filed a “Petition for Pretrial

Detention Relief” in which he asked to be released from jail pending trial, arguing that there was

no reason to believe that he was a threat to the community or a flight risk, continued detention was

excessive and unreasonable, and there were other measures to protect the interested parties and the

community short of detention. Id. ¶ 6. Notably, the motion did not allege any errors in the court’s

previous detention rulings. Id. At a hearing on the motion, the court stated the motion was “not a

motion for appellate purposes” and clarified that the defendant was asking the court “to review his

detention and reconsider; is that correct?” Id. ¶ 7. Defense counsel agreed, stating, “[r]ight, to see

whether or not detention’s still necessary.” Id. The circuit court denied the motion and advised the

defendant that he could appeal the court’s ruling, but only after filing a motion for relief. Id. ¶ 17.

This court dismissed the defendant’s appeal, concluding that the motion was not the type of motion

for relief contemplated by Rule 604(h)(2) because the motion “read just like an argument at a

subsequent-review hearing” and “did not identify any errors in previous detention rulings or cite

Rule 604.” Id. ¶ 15. Rather, the motion simply presented arguments as to why continued detention

was inappropriate, which was insufficient under Rule 604. Id.

¶ 12 Similarly here, defendant’s “Motion for Pretrial Release” was filed several months after

the court’s previous detention decision, did not cite Rule 604(h)(2) as the basis for the motion, and

did not allege any errors in the court’s previous detention decision. Instead, the motion simply

argued against defendant’s continued detention based on recent mitigating circumstances.

Defendant’s attorney specifically told the court that he understood “this is a reconsideration

motion.” As in Patterson, the circuit court denied the motion, finding “[c]ontinued detention a

-5- No. 1-25-1814B

necessity to avoid a real and present threat to the community or to the complaining witness” and

held that defendant would “remain detained for right now.” Also as in Patterson, the court

specifically informed defendant that before she could appeal, she must file a motion for relief

setting forth the grounds for relief, any issue not raised in that motion other than errors occurring

for the first time at the hearing on the motion would be deemed waived, and only “[a]fter

disposition of the motion for relief” did defendant have the right to appeal the court’s order. The

court asked if defendant understood her appeal rights and defendant answered, “[y]es.” Based on

all of these facts, neither the court nor defense counsel viewed the “Motion for Pretrial Release”

as a Rule 604(h)(2) motion challenging a previous detention ruling. Accordingly, as in Patterson,

the motion at issue was not a motion for relief under Rule 604 and counsel’s representation that it

was a motion to reconsider confirms that conclusion. See Patterson, 2025 IL App (1st) 250510, ¶

20.

¶ 13 Because defendant has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 604(h)(2), this appeal must

be dismissed. See id. ¶¶ 22-26; People v. Nettles, 2024 IL App (4th) 240962, ¶ 21; Cooksey, 2024

IL App (1st) 240932, ¶ 19. “Given that the version of Rule 604(h) now in effect permits an appeal

at any time before conviction and imposes no time frame for the filing of a Rule 604(h)(2) motion,

defendant remains free to appeal the disposition of any Rule 604(h)(2) motion regarding the trial

court's order in this case, should he choose to file such a motion.” Cooksey, 2024 IL App (1st)

240932, ¶ 19.

¶ 14 Appeal dismissed.

-6-