¶ 18 In People v. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, the fourth district recently considered the applicability of plain-error review to an appeal under facts comparable to those present here. In Martin, as in the present case, the defendant failed to post the required bond and remained in custody.
¶ 18 "Rule 604(h), which governs appeals under the Act, provides '[t]he Notice of Appeal shall describe the relief requested and the grounds for the relief requested,' and the form notice of appeal prescribed by Rule 606(d) requires the defendant to describe those grounds in detail." People v. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶ 18 (citing Ill. S.Ct. Rs. 604(h), 606(d) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023))." 'Supreme Court Rules have the force of law.
¶ 14 Recently, in People v. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶ 19, we concluded, "[W]e must limit our review to the issues fairly raised by a liberal construction of defendant's notice of appeal." Even when construing defendant's notice of appeal liberally, we do not see how it could be interpreted as raising claims that the denial of his pretrial detention should be reversed because the State did not file a petition to deny pretrial release and any such petition would have been untimely or that defense counsel was ineffective for inviting the court to continue defendant's detention.
However, defendant's notice of appeal was filed on April 1, 2024, and under the operative version of Rule 604(h)(2) at the time, defendant was only required to file a notice that described both the relief and grounds for relief requested, as well as a form order notice prescribed by Rule 606(d). See Ill. S.Ct. R. 604(h)(2) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023); 606(d) (same); People v. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶ 18. Thus, defendant was not required to file a motion before the circuit court outlining the issues he intended to appeal.
Whether the circuit court's factual findings were against the manifest weight is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the court must create a sufficient record to allow meaningful review. See People v. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶ 24. In reviewing the record, we may consider both the oral and written findings of the circuit court. Castillo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232315, ¶ 30.
Accordingly, while the facts in the State's proffer might have provided the trial court ample reason to conclude no conditions could mitigate the threat defendant posed if released, the court failed to identify its reasons as required by the statute, notwithstanding the dissent's claim that it did. See People v. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶ 24 ("While the facts underlying the court's decision may well have been sufficient to deny defendant pretrial release on any combination of nonmonetary conditions, we cannot supply the missing conclusion; the [statute] requires that these matters be addressed by the trial court."). We find a new hearing on the State's petition to deny defendant pretrial release is warranted, at which the court can make the findings required under section 110-6.1(h) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h) (West 2022)).
¶ 30 People v. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, is analogous. There, the appellate court found the trial court's "oral statement that '[defendant] needs to be detained,' with no further detail provided in its detention order, falls short of complying with 'the clear legislative directive' to address less restrictive conditions of release, a directive that significantly predates the Act."
18, 2023). See also People v. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶ 18. "Supreme Court Rules have the force of law.
Here, neither the circuit court's written nor its oral findings meet the "clear legislative directive" for courts to address less restrictive conditions of release. See People v. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶ 23, quoting People v. Gil, 2019 IL App (1st) 192419, ¶15-17. The failure of the circuit court to meet the statutory mandate of making findings summarizing its reasons for denying pretrial release is an abuse of discretion.
Thus, we agree with the State that Gordan forfeited this challenge under 110-6(a). See People v. Martin, 2023 IL App (4th) 230826, ¶¶ 18-19 (under supreme court rules, we "must limit our review to the issues fairly raised by a liberal construction of defendant's notice of appeal"). "No matter how liberally we construe [his] notice of appeal, it does not encompass" relevant issues.