JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Hutchinson and Birkett concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

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

¶2 In this interlocutory appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h) (eff. Oct. 19, 2023), defendant, Cesar D. Velazquez, appeals from the trial court’s order granting the State’s petition to deny defendant pretrial release and ordering him detained pursuant to Public Acts 101-652 and 102-1104 (eff. Jan. ^[1], 2023), commonly known as the Pretrial Fairness Act (Act).1 See Rowe v.

struck, and strangled her. In a fourth count, the State charged defendant with domestic battery (physical contact) (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(2) (West 2022)), a Class A misdemeanor, alleging that defendant, knowingly and without legal justification, made physical contact of an insulting nature with Ocelotl, a family or household member, in that he slapped, struck, and strangled her. Finally, as amended, the State charged defendant with aggravated assault (use of deadly weapon) (720 ILCS 5/12-2(c)(1) (West 2022)), a Class A misdemeanor, alleging that defendant, while committing assault (720 ILCS 5/12-1(a) (West 2022)), without lawful authority and while armed with a deadly weapon, a pair of scissors, knowingly raised scissors toward Ocelotl, thereby placing her in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery. The State alleged that all the charged offenses occurred on or about October 4, 2023.

¶5 The police synopsis related that, on October 4, 2023, at 2:18 p.m., West Dundee police officer Fallon was dispatched to 2900 Canterfield Parkway East in response to a distressed female’s call. At the scene, Ocelotl approached officers Fallon and Kruse, requesting paramedics and stating that defendant tried to kill her. Fallon observed signs of injury to Ocelotl’s face and neck. Ocelotl related that she and defendant had argued about messages he found on her phone and that defendant slapped Ocelotl with an open hand and struck her multiple times when she attempted to take back her phone. Ocelotl was unable to determine how many times or how long she was slapped and struck, because, she stated, they moved around. She also related that she was knocked to the ground multiple times. Further, at some point, defendant, according to Ocelotl, had a pair of black scissors in his hand, moving around the kitchen with her and threatening to kill their cat if Ocelotl did not give him the car keys. Defendant also threatened to kill Ocelotl if she did not give him the car keys and stated that he was going to kill the man she had messaged.

¶6 Ocelotl also told Fallon that she saw defendant recording her with his phone while calling her names, and he was on top of her while recording her and strangled her with one hand. Ocelotl was unable to provide specific details concerning the strangulation, according to Fallon. She stated that defendant went to the kitchen and began taking photos of her phone. She then took her phone and ran outside to her vehicle.

¶7 Once inside her vehicle, Ocelotl called 911 and hung up when defendant came outside. Defendant struck her again, and they went back inside. Defendant saw Ocelotl call the police and became angry. She stated that he strangled her again with one hand and told her that this was how she was going to die. Ocelotl began to scream, and defendant covered her mouth with his hand. She bit his finger, which, according to Fallon, was consistent with an injury observed on defendant. Oceltol stated that she could not breathe for about two seconds while defendant strangled her and described her pain as 10 out of 10. She believed she was going to die.

¶8 Ocelotl also stated that she was struck and slapped while on the stairs that lead up to the apartment. Defendant raised a pair of black scissors like he was going to hurt her with them.

¶9 Fallon reported that a blue pair of scissors were in defendant’s pocket when he arrived at the residence, and he located a black pair of scissors within the entryway at the bottom of the apartment’s stairs. Fallon also related that Ocelotl sustained injuries to her lip, left side of her face, right side of her face, and right side of her neck. Defendant sustained injuries to his chest, abdomen, right ring finger, upper back, left side of his face, and right foot. Defendant’s injuries were, according to Fallon, consistent with Ocelotl’s statements of self-defense.

¶ 10 On October 5, 2023, the State petitioned to deny defendant pretrial release, alleging first that, on the bases of the charges of aggravated domestic battery (strangulation) and two counts of domestic battery, defendant was charged with forcible felonies or other felonies that involve the threat of or infliction of great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and that his pretrial release poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1.5) (West 2022). Second, it asserted that defendant was charged with domestic battery or aggravated domestic battery and his pretrial release posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community. Id. § 5/110-6.1(a)(4) (West 2022).

¶ 11 The trial court found that defendant had been arrested without a warrant and that, based on the police synopsis, there was probable cause for his arrest.

¶ 12 Turning to the State’s petition, defense counsel argued first that the evidence concerning whether defendant committed the alleged acts was insufficient, because defendant also suffered injuries. Counsel also noted that the police synopsis did not reflect that the officers recorded defendant’s version of the events. Defense counsel next proffered that, the day prior to the incident, defendant discovered that Ocelotl had miscarried their child. Ocelotl was drinking and was involved in an intimate relationship with another person. Defendant saw text messages between them and attempted to speak to Ocelotl about the relationship and the recent miscarriage. At this point, according to defense counsel, Ocelotl attacked defendant, getting on top of him and hitting him. She also scratched defendant’s face, resulting in injuries reflected in the police synopsis. Addressing Ocelotl’s statements regarding the alleged strangulation, counsel argued that the synopsis was confusing because, at one point, Ocelotl stated that she did not know how it happened. Counsel also noted that there was no allegation that defendant prevented Ocelotl from calling 911. Next, addressing defendant’s alleged statements that he was going to kill Ocelotl, counsel argued that defendant’s actual words were “that’s it for you,” reflecting that he no longer wanted to be in a relationship with Ocelotl, not to kill her. Similarly, his statement reflected that he wanted to have a conversation with the person with whom Ocelotl was having a relationship.

As to the scissors, counsel argued that defendant had them in his pocket because he was afraid, had been violently attacked, and was afraid Ocelotl might take them and use them on him.

¶ 13 Counsel further related that Ocelotl had recently made threatening statements to defendant, including the day before that she was thinking about pushing him down the stairs.

¶ 14 Counsel noted that defendant had no criminal history, apart from traffic offenses, and did not have a history of violence. The public safety assessment report, which is not contained in the record on appeal, reflected, according to defense counsel, that defendant had no prior violent convictions, prior felony convictions, or prior misdemeanor convictions. He also had zero failures to appear within the past two years and zero older than two years. Defendant has lived in Illinois his entire life, is 24 years old, and has family that resides in this state, including a brother and three aunts. He holds a full-time job at a psychiatry office and two part-time jobs (at Instacart and DoorDash). Counsel argued that, given the support he has, defendant has somewhere to stay in the area while his case is pending and that there are conditions to mitigate any harm to the public, including a bar order to the address, a no contact order, and an order to surrender firearms, ammunition, dangerous weapons, and any FOID card and concealed carry licenses. Counsel also argued that defendant is not a flight risk, and there are conditions to mitigate any risk.

¶ 15 In response, the State argued that defendant should be detained and noted that defendant did not call 911 even though he had a phone; rather, Ocelotl called the police.

¶ 16 The trial court found that defendant was charged with a detainable offenses—aggravated domestic battery (strangulation) and domestic battery—and that the State had established, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) the proof was evident or the presumption great that defendant committed detainable offenses (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a) (West 2022)); (2) he poses a real and present threat to the physical safety of Ocelotl; and (3) no condition or combination of conditions could mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person (725 ILCS 5/110-10(b) (West 2022)). As to the evidence that defendant committed detainable offenses, the court noted it relied on the verified petition, the proffered evidence from defense counsel, and the synopsis. As to its dangerousness finding, the court noted that it found credible that defendant threatened to kill Ocelotl multiple times and took steps in furtherance of that, including choking her on more than one occasion and threatening her with scissors. As to the proffered evidence concerning Ocelotl’s miscarriage, the court found that this supported Ocelotl’s version of the events over defendant’s version and did not support a finding that Ocelotl had a basis to attack defendant. Next, the court noted that, in determining that the State had established that the proof was evident and presumption great that no condition or combination thereof could mitigate the real and present threat posed by defendant, it found that defendant made multiple threats to kill Ocelotl over messages on a phone and, thus, his anger was such that it did not believe defendant would follow any conditions of pretrial release.

¶ 17 In its written order, the trial court noted that the synopsis provided clear and convincing evidence that defendant committed aggravated domestic battery (strangulation) and domestic battery, detainable offenses, by repeatedly striking and choking Ocelotl. The court also found that the synopsis supported that Ocelotl had injuries consistent with her statements in the synopsis that defendant possessed a pair of scissors, which also corroborated Ocelotl’s statement of what occurred. The court also found that defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person, in that he repeatedly threatened to kill Ocelotl and a cat. He also threatened to kill the male who messaged Ocelotl. Defendant, the court further found, acted upon the threat to kill Ocelotl by choking her and threatening to stab her with a pair of scissors. The trial court also found that less restrictive conditions would not assure safety to the community and assure defendant’s appearance in court. Specifically, it determined that neither a no contact nor stay away order would protect Ocelotl from defendant. The court also found that electronic home monitoring (EHM) or GPS would not protect Ocelotl from the real and present threat defendant presented and that defendant displayed by repeatedly attacking Ocelotl and caused the court to believe that nothing could protect her. Finally, the court ordered that defendant have no contact with Ocelotl.

¶ 18 On the same date, defendant filed his notice of appeal, and, on November 22, 2023, the Office of the State Appellate Defender elected to file a notice in lieu of an Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h) (eff. Oct. 19, 2023) memorandum.

¶ 19 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 20 A. Pretrial Release Provisions of Code

¶ 21 Pretrial release is governed by article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code), as amended by the Act. 725 ILCS 5/art. 110 (West 2022). Under the Code, pretrial release may be denied only in certain situations (qualifying offenses). Id. §§ 110-2(a), 110-6.1. Upon filing a timely 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 a qualifying offense, that the defendant’s pretrial release poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community or is a flight risk, and that less restrictive conditions would not avoid a real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community and/or prevent the defendant’s willful flight from prosecution. Id. § 110-6.1(e), (f).

¶ 22 If the trial court finds that the State proved a valid threat to the safety of any person or the community and/or defendant’s likely willful flight to avoid prosecution, or defendant’s failure to abide by previously issued conditions of pretrial release, the court must determine which pretrial release conditions, “if any, will reasonably ensure the appearance of a defendant as required or the safety of any other person or the community and the likelihood of compliance by the defendant with all the conditions of pretrial release.” Id. § 110-5(a).

¶ 23 If the trial court determines that the defendant should be denied pretrial release, the court must make written findings summarizing the reasons for denying pretrial release, including why less restrictive conditions would not avoid a real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community, based on the specific articulable facts of the case, or prevent the defendant’s willful flight from prosecution. Id. § 110-6.1(h)(1).

¶ 24 We review under the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard the trial court’s factual findings regarding whether the State presented clear and convincing evidence that mandatory conditions of release would fail to protect any person or the community, the defendant has a high likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution, or the defendant failed to comply with previously issued conditions of pretrial release, thereby requiring a modification or revocation of the previously issued conditions of pretrial release. People v. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. A decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence where the court’s determination is unreasonable. People v. Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322, 332 (2008). We review for an abuse of discretion the trial court’s ultimate determination regarding pretrial release. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s determination is unreasonable. People v. Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253, ¶ 9.

¶ 25 B. Commission of Qualifying Offenses

¶ 26 First, defendant argues that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the proof is evident or the presumption great that defendant committed the charged offenses. Specifically, he asserts that the synopsis reflects that he sustained “vast” injuries as a result of the incident, including injuries to his chest, abdomen, right ring finger, upper back, left side of his face, and his right foot. All the injuries, he contends, were sustained as a result of Ocelotl’s actions. He also notes that, by way of proffer, he stated that Ocelotl attacked him by getting on top of him, scratching at him, and slapping him. Defendant also asserts that Ocelotl made statements that she was thinking of pushing defendant down the stairs.

¶ 27 We conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that the State established, via clear and convincing the evidence, 2 that the proof was evident or the presumption great that defendant committed the qualifying offenses. The evidence at the hearing on the State’s petition consisted of the police synopsis, the charging documents, and defendant’s criminal history.

¶ 28 Defendant was charged with two qualifying offenses: aggravated domestic battery (strangulation) 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. “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. Id. § 12-3.2(a). Battery is defined as knowingly, without legal