MOUNT VERNON - Suspects who were already in jail when the SAFE-T Act went into effect may seek review or "elect to stand on the terms" of their pretrial conditions, Fifth District appellate judges ruled in two cases from Coles County.
Specifically, the appellate court found a defendant may move for review under reform standards or elect to stay in detention until payment of security as previously set.
Justice Randy Moore wrote in one case that, “A defendant may elect this option so that they may be released under the terms of the original bail.”
“Some defendants may prefer this second option, which allows for the possibility of pretrial release if the previously set monetary security is posted as opposed to a hearing pursuant to the first option after which they might be detained without any possibility of pretrial release,” he wrote.
“We believe this is particularly true in cases where the previously set monetary security is in an amount that the defendant believes the defendant will be able to post soon,” he added.
He compared it to a change in sentencing law after a defendant committed an offense.
“The defendant is given the opportunity to choose to be sentenced under the law that existed at the time of the offense or the newly enacted law,” he wrote.
Justices Judy Cates and Thomas Welch concurred.
Cates delivered a similar opinion in the other case with Moore and Welch concurring.
She found that when the state requests denial of pretrial release the state must prove a defendant committed a qualifying offense and release posed a real and present threat.
If the state proves a valid threat or likely flight, the court must determine which conditions would ensure safety of the community and appearance of the defendant.
Cates found the court must consider the nature and circumstances of the crime, the weight of evidence, the defendant’s history and characteristics, the nature of a specific threat that release would pose, and the risk of obstructing justice.
The SAFE-T Act took effect on Sept. 18, eliminating cash bail in Illinois.
On that date, Coles County State’s Attorney Jesse Danley moved to deny pretrial release to Rene Rios and Joseph Vingara.
Danley charged Rios with predatory sexual assault and sexual assault against a family member in August.
Circuit Judge Brian Bower set bond at $500,000 and required a 10% deposit.
Danley charged Vingara with aggravated assault, possession of a weapon by a felon, unlawful use of a weapon, possession of methamphetamine, and forgery in July.
Bower set bond at $50,000.
On the day Danley moved to deny Rios’s release, Bower held a hearing and granted it.
He held a hearing for Vingara the next day and granted denial.
Fifth District judges reversed Bower, finding he acted on premature motions.
Moore and Cates noted that an election by Rios and Vingara to stand on their original pretrial conditions would require no action on their part.
State appellate defenders James Chadd and Carolyn Klarquist of Chicago represented Rios and Vingara.
State appellate prosecutors Patrick Delfino and David Robinson of Springfield represented the people.