pretrial release hearing in Illinois

2025See People v. Smith, 2024 IL App (2d) 240168, ¶ 21 . ¶ 47 As to the history and characteristics of the defendant, the trial court acknowledged that his age, employment status, and lack of criminal history weighed in his favor.

2024See People v. Smith, 2024 IL App (2d) 240168, ¶ 21 . (“A claim of justification is, of course, relevant at a pretrial release hearing, but merely because a -4- defendant might raise a defense at trial is not dispositive of pretrial release concerns.” (Emphasis in original.)). ¶ 18 We likewise reject defendant’s argument regarding the lack of identification by the two eyewitnesses.

2024See Richardson, 189 Ill. 2d at 412 (appellate counsel’s failure to raise an issue on direct appeal); Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶¶ 85 , 91 12 (failure to object to prosecutorial remarks during closing argument of the trial); People v. Ceja, 204 Ill. 2d 332, 358 (2003) (same); People v. Harris, 182 Ill. 2d 114, 137 (1998) (failure to object to testimony submitted during the trial). ¶ 33 Here, defendant has alleged no facts and presented no argument to show that the pretrial release hearing would have any bearing on the ultimate, and yet undetermined, outcome of his pending criminal charges.

2024See People v. Richardson, 189 Ill. 2d 401, 412 (2000) (appellate counsel’s failure to raise an issue on direct appeal); People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶¶ 85, 91 (failure to object to prosecutorial remarks during closing argument of the trial); People v. Ceja, 204 Ill. 2d 332, 358 (2003) (same); People v. Harris, 182 Ill. 2d 114, 137 (1998) (failure to object to testimony submitted during the trial). ¶ 57 Defendant here has alleged no facts and presented no argument to show that the pretrial release hearing would have any bearing on the ultimate, and yet undetermined, outcome of defendant’s

2024See Richardson, 189 Ill. 2d at 412 (appellate counsel’s failure to raise an issue on direct appeal); Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶¶ 85 , 91 12 (failure to object to prosecutorial remarks during closing argument of the trial); People v. Ceja, 204 Ill. 2d 332, 358 (2003) (same); People v. Harris, 182 Ill. 2d 114, 137 (1998) (failure to object to testimony submitted during the trial). ¶ 33 Here, defendant has alleged no facts and presented no argument to show that the pretrial release hearing would have any bearing on the ultimate, and yet undetermined, outcome of his pending criminal charges.

2024See People v. Richardson, 189 Ill. 2d 401, 412 (2000) (appellate counsel’s failure to raise an issue on direct appeal); People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶¶ 85, 91 (failure to object to prosecutorial remarks during closing argument of the trial); People v. Ceja, 204 Ill. 2d 332, 358 (2003) (same); People v. Harris, 182 Ill. 2d 114, 137 (1998) (failure to object to testimony submitted during the trial). ¶ 57 Defendant here has alleged no facts and presented no argument to show that the pretrial release hearing would have any bearing on the ultimate, and yet undetermined, outcome of defendant’s

2024See Richardson, 189 Ill. 2d at 412 (appellate counsel’s failure to raise an issue on direct appeal); Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶¶ 85 , 91 12 (failure to object to prosecutorial remarks during closing argument of the trial); People v. Ceja, 204 Ill. 2d 332, 358 (2003) (same); People v. Harris, 182 Ill. 2d 114, 137 (1998) (failure to object to testimony submitted during the trial). ¶ 33 Here, defendant has alleged no facts and presented no argument to show that the pretrial release hearing would have any bearing on the ultimate, and yet undetermined, outcome of his pending criminal charges.

2024See People v. Richardson, 189 Ill. 2d 401, 412 (2000) (appellate counsel’s failure to raise an issue on direct appeal); People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶¶ 85, 91 (failure to object to prosecutorial remarks during closing argument of the trial); People v. Ceja, 204 Ill. 2d 332, 358 (2003) (same); People v. Harris, 182 Ill. 2d 114, 137 (1998) (failure to object to testimony submitted during the trial). ¶ 57 Defendant here has alleged no facts and presented no argument to show that the pretrial release hearing would have any bearing on the ultimate, and yet undetermined, outcome of defendant’s

2025People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112 , ¶ 91. ¶ 26 As we found in Drew, “Here, at the pretrial release hearing stage of the proceeding, defendant cannot show a reasonable probability that the result of the criminal process would have been different because no plea deal is at issue and defendant’s trial has not been held.” Drew, 2024 10 IL App (5th) 240697, ¶ 37.

2025People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112 , ¶ 91. ¶ 25 As we found in People v. Drew, 2024 IL App (5th) 240697 , “[h]ere, at the pretrial release hearing stage of the proceeding, defendant cannot show a reasonable probability that the result of 9 the criminal process would have been different because no plea deal is at issue and defendant’s trial has not been held.” Id. ¶ 37.

2024We find no fault with Edwards’s analysis and hold that no clear and obvious error occurred because defendant waived the 48-hour window for his detention hearing by requesting the continuance. ¶ 30 We note, however, that even if we disagreed with Edwards on the issue of waiver, the Illinois Supreme Court has stated that “a defendant’s invitation or agreement to the procedure later challenged on appeal ‘goes beyond mere waiver’ ” (People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 385 (2004) (quoting People v. Villarreal, 198 Ill. 2d 209, 227 (2001))) and is sometimes referred to as an issue of estoppel (id. (c

2024We find no fault with Edwards’s analysis and hold that no clear and obvious error occurred because defendant waived the 48-hour window for his detention hearing by requesting the continuance. ¶ 30 We note, however, that even if we disagreed with Edwards on the issue of waiver, the Illinois Supreme Court has stated that “a defendant’s invitation or agreement to the procedure later challenged on appeal ‘goes beyond mere waiver’ ” (People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 385 (2004) (quoting People v. Villarreal, 198 Ill. 2d 209, 227 (2001))) and is sometimes referred to as an issue of estoppel (id. (c

2024See Glover, 531 U.S. at 203-04 ; Lafler, 566 U.S. at 168 ; Frye, 566 U.S. at 145 .

2024The State may “permissibly detain a person suspected of committing a crime prior to a formal adjudication of guilt,” and the “confinement of such persons pending trial is a legitimate means of furthering th[e] [State’s] interest.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 534 (1979) (citing Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 111 (1975), and Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4 (1951)).

2024We find no fault with Edwards’s analysis and hold that no clear and obvious error occurred because defendant waived the 48-hour window for his detention hearing by requesting the continuance. ¶ 30 We note, however, that even if we disagreed with Edwards on the issue of waiver, the Illinois Supreme Court has stated that “a defendant’s invitation or agreement to the procedure later challenged on appeal ‘goes beyond mere waiver’ ” (People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 385 (2004) (quoting People v. Villarreal, 198 Ill. 2d 209, 227 (2001))) and is sometimes referred to as an issue of estoppel (id. (c

2024The State may “permissibly detain a person suspected of committing a crime prior to a formal adjudication of guilt,” and the “confinement of such persons pending trial is a legitimate means of furthering th[e] [State’s] interest.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 534 (1979) (citing Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 111 (1975), and Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4 (1951)).

2023Rowe, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 52 (lifting stay and setting effective date as September 18, 2023). 2 conditions of pretrial release could mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of the victim and the community. ¶6 On September 18, 2023, the trial court held a pretrial release hearing.