The opinion
2024 IL App (1st) 241745-U
No. 1-24-1745B
First Division
December 9, 2024
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
____________________________________________________________________________
) Appeal from the
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Circuit Court of
ILLINOIS, ) Cook County.
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) No. 24 CR 2442
v. )
)
MIKAL DAVIS ) Honorable
) Natosha Toller
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE COBBS delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Lavin and Pucinski concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The circuit court’s order denying defendant’s pretrial release is affirmed.
¶2 Defendant Mikal Davis appeals from an order of the circuit court denying him pretrial
release under article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/art. 110 (West
2022)), as amended by Public Act 101-652, § 10-255 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as the
Pretrial Fairness Act. In particular, defendant contends that the State failed to carry its burden of
No. 1-24-1745B
proving by clear and convincing evidence (1) that the proof is evident or the presumption great
that he committed a detainable offense; (2) that he poses a real and present threat to the safety of
any person or the community, based on specific, articulable facts of the case; and (3) that no
condition or combination of conditions could mitigate this threat. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On February 12, 2024, defendant was arrested and charged with unlawful use or possession
of a weapon by a felon, unlawful use or possession of a machine gun, aggravated unlawful use of
a weapon, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and being an armed habitual criminal. The State
filed a petition to detain defendant, alleging that he posed a real and present threat to the safety of
a person or the community.
¶5 The circuit court held its initial detention hearing on February 13, 2024. At the hearing, the
State gave the following proffer. At approximately 11:30 a.m. on February 12, 2024, a police
helicopter observed a Jeep “traveling recklessly down Lake Shore Drive at a high rate of speed.”
Officers were dispatched to the area and attempted to stop the Jeep, but the Jeep made a U-turn in
an attempt to evade them. However, the Jeep stalled and came to a stop, at which point officers
discovered that defendant was the driver and sole occupant of the Jeep.
¶6 Defendant initially refused multiple commands to exit the vehicle, but officers were
eventually able to remove him. Once defendant was outside, officers discovered a loaded Glock
handgun with an automatic switch and an extended magazine on the floorboard under the driver’s
seat. The police also recovered a second extended magazine from the same location. Defendant
was a convicted felon and did not have a valid FOID card or Concealed Carry License.
-2-
No. 1-24-1745B
¶7 The State further proffered that in October 2023, defendant was stopped by police while
driving the same Jeep in Hammond, Indiana. At that time, Hammond PD informed defendant that
the Jeep was stolen and confiscated the vehicle. However, the Jeep was stolen from a Hammond
PD lot three days later. The license plate found on the Jeep at the time of defendant’s arrest did
not match the vehicle’s registration and was also a different plate than was on the vehicle during
the October 2023 stop.
¶8 Finally, the State proffered that defendant’s criminal history included a 2011 felony
conviction for aggravated discharge of a firearm and a 2017 felony conviction for unlawful use of
a weapon by a felon. Defendant was also convicted of misdemeanor possession of ammunition in
2019, for which he remained on probation at the time of his arrest in this matter. Pretrial Services
evaluated defendant as a five out of six on the New Criminal Activity scale and a four out of six
on the Failure to Appear scale.
¶9 The defense argued that the State failed to show the elements of the charged offenses,
stating that defendant never admitted to knowledge of the gun and that the Jeep “may” belong to
defendant’s cousin. The defense also contended that defendant did not pose a danger to the
community because he never brandished or fired the gun and his criminal history was “fairly
limited” and “mostly nonviolent.” The defense further maintained that defendant was a good
candidate for electronic monitoring, as he had no escape charges or failures to appear. Counsel
also noted that defendant was a lifelong resident of Cook County who lived with his girlfriend and
three children. He was pursuing a Bachelor’s degree at Northwestern University and worked full
time as an outreach worker at Chicago Create Real Economic Destiny.
¶ 10 After hearing arguments from the parties, the circuit court found that the State produced
clear and convincing evidence that (1) evident and the presumption great that defendant committed
-3-
No. 1-24-1745B
the charged offenses, (2) defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety of the community,
and (3) no condition or combination of conditions on pretrial release would mitigate that threat.
Accordingly, the court ordered that defendant be detained.
¶ 11 On April 2, 2024, defendant filed a “Motion for Bond Review” in which he sought “an
order granting bond or release.” The circuit court held a hearing on the motion on May 1, 2024,
where both the State and defense raised substantially similar arguments to those made at the
original detention hearing.
¶ 12 Following that hearing, the court reiterated its earlier finding that the State had proved all
three elements to warrant defendant’s continued detention. More specifically, the court opined that
the State adequately proved that defendant committed a detainable offense because the proffer
established that he was a convicted felon found in possession of a firearm. As to dangerousness,
the court stated that defendant was driving recklessly in a populated area and attempted to evade
police. The court also observed that the firearm in this case had an automatic switch and extended
magazine, making it “not a gun just for safety,” but a “killing machine.” The court further cited
defendant’s criminal history involving firearms and the fact that he was on probation for an
ammunition charge at the time of his arrest. Finally, the court found that detention was necessary
to protect the public, as defendant’s conduct “clearly shows that he does not and is not likely to
obey any conditions short of detention.” Thus, defendant remained detained.
¶ 13 On July 22, 2024, defendant filed a “Motion to Reconsider Pretrial Detention.” At the
hearing on the motion, the defense again argued that the State did not prove defendant’s
constructive possession of the firearm because he was not the owner of the vehicle where it was
found and there was no evidence that he admitted knowledge of the weapon. Defense counsel also
represented that “there wasn’t any excessive reckless driving” and defendant failed to comply with
-4-
No. 1-24-1745B
officers’ commands to exit the vehicle because of “electrical problems” caused when the vehicle
stalled. Counsel conceded that defendant had a “rather serious criminal background” but contended
that the State had not shown a “specific articulable threat” from his criminal history and alleged
possession of a firearm in this case.
¶ 14 The court rejected the defense’s arguments, essentially reiterating its previous rulings
regarding the State’s evidence. This appeal followed.
¶ 15 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 16 As an initial matter, the State contends that defendant’s appeal should be dismissed because
he did not file a motion for relief as required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(2) (eff. April
15, 2024). Rule 604(h)(2) provides that:
“As a prerequisite to appeal, the party taking the appeal shall first present to the trial court
a written motion requesting the same relief to be sought on appeal and the grounds for such
relief. The trial court shall promptly hear and decide the motion for relief. Upon appeal,
any issue not raised in the motion for relief, other than errors occurring for the first time at
the hearing on the motion for relief, shall be deemed waived.” Id.
This court has held that the failure to file a Rule 604(h)(2) motion is not a jurisdictional bar to an
appeal. People v. Cooksey, 2024 IL App (1st) 240932, ¶ 16. However, as all issues not raised in a
motion for relief are waived on appeal, the lack of such a motion may prevent a reviewing court
from considering the merits of an appeal. Id. ¶ 17.
¶ 17 In this case, defendant’s July 22, 2024 “Motion to Reconsider Pretrial Release” seeks his
“release *** from pretrial detention,” which is the same relief he seeks now on appeal. The motion
also sets forth some general grounds for that relief, which the record shows were fully litigated by
-5-
No. 1-24-1745B
the parties at a hearing before the circuit court. Thus, contrary to the State’s contention, we find
that the Motion to Reconsider Pretrial Release fulfills the purposes of Rule 604(h)(2).
¶ 18 That being said, however, we agree with the State that the arguments raised in the motion
do not warrant reversal of the circuit court’s detention order. Defendant’s motion makes only three
conclusory assertions relevant to this appeal, namely that (1) “[t]he proof is not evident nor the
presumption great that the Defendant has committed a qualifying detainable offense;” (2) “[t]he
Defendant does not pose a real and present threat [to] the safety of any person or persons or the
community;” and (3) “[t]here may be conditions or a combination of conditions that can mitigate
the real and present threat to the safety of any person, persons, or the community, or Defendant’s
willful flight.” The motion does not further elaborate on any of these points.
¶ 19 We acknowledge here that the proper standard of review remains the subject of unresolved
debate among the appellate districts and even divisions within the First District. See People v.
Parker, 2024 IL App (1st) 232164, ¶¶ 46-50 (discussing the debate and collecting cases). Until
provided with further direction from our supreme court, we continue to find People v. Saucedo,
2024 IL App (1st) 232020, to be persuasive authority. As in Saucedo, we apply the manifest weight
of the evidence standard in deciding whether the State has proven that the defendant committed a
detainable offense and poses a real and present danger to the community. Id. ¶¶ 31-32. Under this
standard, the circuit court’s decision is reversed only where the opposite conclusion is clearly
evident or if the finding itself was unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence. Id. ¶ 32.
With respect to whether any condition or combination of conditions on release would be sufficient
to mitigate the danger, we apply the abuse of discretion standard. Id. ¶ 36. A circuit court abuses
its discretion only where its findings are arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable such that no reasonable
-6-
No. 1-24-1745B
person would agree with the court’s position. Id. We further note that our decision in this case
would be the same regardless of the standard of review.
¶ 20 Turning to the merits, the State’s proffer established that defendant, a convicted felon, was
the driver and sole occupant of a vehicle in which an automatic firearm and multiple extended
magazines were found beneath the driver’s seat. Contrary to defendant’s arguments before the
circuit court, this was clearly sufficient to establish that he committed the detainable offense of
unlawful use or possession of a weapon by a felon, regardless of whether he admitted to knowledge
of the firearm. See People v. Hilson, 2023 IL App (5th) 220047, ¶ 59 (constructive possession
proved beyond a reasonable doubt where firearm was found under the driver’s seat of a vehicle
driven by the defendant). The State’s proffer also established that defendant had history of firearm-
related felonies and was only found in possession of the weapon in this case after driving recklessly
down a busy street and attempting to elude the police. Additionally, the evidence showed that
defendant was on probation for an ammunition conviction at the time of his arrest in this matter.
Under these circumstances, the circuit court did not err in determining that defendant posed a real
and present threat to community safety, and that no conditions on defendant’s release would
mitigate that threat.
¶ 21 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 22 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
¶ 23 Affirmed.
-7-