Defendant Wins Appeal to Vacate Detention Order Under SAFE-T Act
The appellate court ruled that the State’s petition to detain a defendant charged with felony murder and armed robbery was untimely under Illinois pretrial-release law.
An Illinois appellate court vacated a detention order in a case involving a defendant charged with felony murder and armed robbery. In People v. Mosley, 2023 IL App (5th) 230823-U, the Fifth District Appellate Court determined that the State had filed its petition for pretrial detention too late under the timing requirements of the Illinois pretrial-release statute.
The defendant, Bernard Mosley Jr., had originally been arrested in 2020 and remained in custody under a bond that required the deposit of monetary security. After Illinois’ pretrial-release provisions took effect on September 18, 2023, the State filed a petition seeking to have Mosley detained before trial under the new law. The circuit court granted that petition, but the appellate court concluded that the State did not have authority to seek detention through the untimely petition. The appellate court therefore vacated the detention order, reinstated the original bond order, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Quick Answer
The key issue in People v. Mosley, 2023 IL App (5th) 230823-U was not whether the charged offenses were serious enough to permit detention. The appellate court held that the State’s petition was untimely because Mosley had been arrested and detained before the pretrial-release provisions took effect, and the State did not file its detention petition at the first appearance or within the statutory period following his arrest and release.
Charges Against Bernard Mosley Jr.
Mosley was charged in August 2020 with one count of felony murder and two counts of armed robbery. The appellate court’s order states that the charges arose from an alleged armed robbery in which Mosley was charged as an accomplice.
Following his arrest, the circuit court set bond at $1.25 million and required a 10 percent deposit. Mosley’s request to reduce the bond was denied, and he remained in custody while the criminal case proceeded through discovery and multiple continuances.
2020 Arrest
Mosley was arrested on August 6, 2020, and charged with felony murder and two counts of armed robbery.
Original Bond
The circuit court set bond at $1.25 million and required a 10 percent deposit.
2023 Motion
The defense later sought relief under the newly effective pretrial-release provisions.
Illinois’ Pretrial Release System Changed in September 2023
Illinois’ pretrial-release provisions were enacted through the SAFE-T Act and are codified in Article 110 of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure. The Illinois Supreme Court set September 18, 2023, as the effective date of the Pretrial Fairness Act provisions. Illinois courts describe the change as eliminating the cash-bail system and replacing it with a system centered on pretrial release and statutory standards for detention.
Under 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1, the State may file a verified petition seeking to deny pretrial release in specified circumstances. For certain forcible felonies, the statute permits the State to seek detention when the defendant’s release is alleged to pose a real and present threat to the safety of a person or the community, based on specific articulable facts.
A detention hearing is therefore governed by statutory requirements concerning both the substance of the detention request and the procedure used to bring that request before the court.
Important Change in Illinois Criminal Cases
Since September 18, 2023, Illinois generally does not use cash bail or money bonds as the condition for pretrial release. Instead, courts determine whether a person should be released, released with conditions, or detained when the statutory requirements for detention are met.
Why the Detention Order Was Vacated
The circuit court held a detention hearing on September 20, 2023. At that hearing, the court found that the proof was evident and the presumption great that Mosley committed the qualifying offense as an accomplice. The court also found that Mosley posed a potential flight risk and a real and present danger to other people or the community and concluded that less restrictive conditions would not sufficiently address those concerns.
The appellate court did not resolve those factual concerns because it determined that the State’s detention petition was procedurally untimely. Under the version of 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 applied in the case, the State could file a petition at the defendant’s first court appearance or, in the alternative, within 21 calendar days after the defendant’s arrest and release, subject to statutory exceptions.
Mosley had not been released from detention following his 2020 arrest, and he had not been charged with a new offense. The Fifth District therefore concluded that the statutory exception did not apply and that the State’s petition was untimely.
Arrest Before the New Law
Mosley was arrested and detained in 2020, years before the September 18, 2023 effective date of the new pretrial-release provisions.
Petition Filed in September 2023
The State filed its verified petition for detention on September 12, 2023, shortly before the new provisions became effective.
Untimely Detention Petition
The appellate court determined that the State had not filed the detention petition within the applicable statutory timeframe.
Detention Order Vacated
Because the petition was untimely, the appellate court held that the circuit court lacked authority to detain Mosley under that petition.
Previously Deposited Bail Security Under Illinois Law
Mosley’s case also involved a provision addressing defendants who had previously been subject to monetary security. 725 ILCS 5/110-7.5 addresses previously deposited bail security.
The appellate court explained that defendants in Mosley’s situation could have options under the statute. One option could involve seeking a hearing under 725 ILCS 5/110-5(e) to determine the reasons for continued detention and what conditions could reasonably address appearance, safety, and compliance. Another option discussed by the court was remaining under previously established monetary-security terms.
What the Appellate Court Ordered
The Fifth District vacated the detention order, reinstated the original bond order, and remanded the case to the circuit court. The court stated that Mosley could stand on the original pretrial conditions or pursue his previously filed request for a hearing under section 110-5(e).
How Illinois Pretrial Detention Works
Illinois’ current pretrial-release system is based on statutory eligibility for release or detention rather than simply setting a monetary bond. A defendant charged with a crime is not automatically detained because of the seriousness of the allegation. Instead, when the State seeks detention under 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1, the court must apply the requirements established by the statute.
Release
A defendant may be released while a criminal case is pending when the statutory requirements for detention are not met.
Conditions
Courts may impose conditions intended to address court appearance, public safety, or compliance with the law.
Detention
For certain qualifying charges, the State may petition for detention when the statutory requirements are satisfied.
The Importance of Timing in a SAFE-T Act Detention Hearing
People v. Mosley, 2023 IL App (5th) 230823-U shows that pretrial detention can involve procedural questions in addition to the underlying allegations. Even when a defendant is charged with an offense that may qualify for detention, the State and the court must follow the applicable statutory procedures.
In Mosley’s case, the circuit court considered whether the defendant presented a danger to the community and whether he was a flight risk. The appellate court did not decide whether those findings were sufficient to support detention because it resolved the appeal based on the separate issue of the State’s untimely detention petition.
A Procedural Issue Can Affect Pretrial Detention
The Mosley decision illustrates that a detention hearing involves more than the seriousness of the criminal allegations. The timing and legal basis of a State’s petition can determine whether the court has authority to enter a detention order.
A Limited Appellate Decision
It is important to understand the scope of People v. Mosley, 2023 IL App (5th) 230823-U. The order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and states that it is not precedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).
The court’s holding was also narrow. The Fifth District expressly stated that the appeal concerned defendants who were arrested and detained before the new pretrial-release provisions became effective. The decision therefore addressed the application of the statutory timing requirements to Mosley’s circumstances rather than establishing a general rule that defendants charged with forcible felonies cannot be detained before trial.
Decatur, IL Criminal Defense Attorneys
Illinois criminal cases involving pretrial detention can involve complicated questions about statutory eligibility, detention hearings, release conditions, appeals, and the timing of the State’s filings. A defendant’s circumstances and the procedural history of the case can affect which provisions of Illinois law apply.
Patel Law, PC represents defendants facing criminal charges and defendants involved in criminal appeals. Our Decatur criminal defense attorneys can review the circumstances of your case and explain the available legal options.
Contact Patel Law, PC to schedule a consultation regarding your Illinois criminal case.
Call Patel Law, PC
Learn More About Patel Law, PC
Sources
People v. Mosley, 2023 IL App (5th) 230823-U — Illinois Appellate Court Opinion
725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 — Denial of Pretrial Release
725 ILCS 5/110-7.5 — Previously Deposited Bail Security
Illinois Courts — Additional Pretrial Resources
