The Thomas court is not alone in its conclusion that there must be changed circumstances when a circuit court decides continued detention is no longer necessary. We came to a similar conclusion in People v. Walton, 2024 IL App (4th) 240541. There, we considered the processes and standards for changing an existing order relating to pretrial release-i.e., orders for detention or orders for release with conditions.

¶ 17 Courts in criminal cases have the inherent power to reconsider and correct their own rulings. People v. Walton, 2024 IL App (4th) 240541, ¶ 20, citing People v. Harris, 2024 IL App (2d) 240070, ¶ 27. The Act imposes conditions governing when release pending criminal trial may be revoked.

¶ 19 Gutierrez offered no new information in support of his request for release. See People v. Walton, 2024 IL App (4th) 240541, ¶ 28 (holding new information required for release under section 110-6.1(i-5)). "If a court has found that a defendant qualifies for detention and no new information or change in circumstances is presented, it makes little sense to think that court would reverse its prior ruling for no particular reason." Walton, 2024 IL App (4th) 240541, ¶ 29.

This motion failed to reference Rule 604(h)(2) and instead cited section 110-5(f-5) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-5(f-5) (West 2022)). Section 110-5(f-5) directs the trial court at each subsequent appearance of a defendant to find that the current conditions imposed remain necessary to reasonably ensure, among others, the safety of any other person or the community. While new information is not required in order to remove or alter pretrial conditions (id.), some change in circumstance must be shown for a defendant to seek a change in an order for detention. People v. Walton, 2024 IL App (4th) 240541, ¶ 37. Defendant's motion suggested no new information or change in circumstances.

Detention must be revisited at every subsequent court date. See People v. Walton, 2024 IL App (4th) 240541, ¶¶ 20, 27 (noting the court's inherent authority to modify interlocutory orders and citing section 110-6.1(i-5) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(i-5) (West 2022)) in finding the court's obligation to review the necessity of detention at future court dates).

Wilson was (and still is) free to point out that the evidence proffered at the initial detention hearing was inaccurate or incomplete based on new discovery, proffer new and updated evidence, and argue that the new facts or circumstances merit his release. See People v. Walton, 2024 IL App (4th) 240541, ¶ 28 (defendant may present new information or change in circumstance for relief under section 110-6.1(i-5)). Wilson could correct any of the State's "misrepresentations" at a later hearing, as he essentially did here with his Motion for Relief.

This court has determined that a showing of "new information or a change in circumstance" is required for relief under this provision of the Code, reasoning, "If a court has found that a defendant qualifies for detention and no new information or change in circumstances is presented, it makes little sense to think that court would reverse its prior ruling for no particular reason." People v. Walton, 2024 IL App (4th) 240541, ¶¶ 28-29.

The review of the initial detention decision against the change in circumstances or new information is a necessity in determining whether the defendant's detention remains appropriate. See People v. Walton, 2024 IL App (4th) 240541, ¶ 37. ¶ 21 The relevant portions of Rule 604(h) state as follows:

However, it is well settled that a trial court has the power to change its interlocutory rulings. People v. Walton, 2024 IL App (4th) 240541, ¶ 31.

We review the circuit court's determination on continued detention for abuse of discretion. Id. ¶ 16; People v. Casey, 2024 IL App (3d) 230568, ¶¶ 11-13; People v. Walton, 2024 IL App (4th) 240541, ¶ 40. A trial court abuses its discretion only when (1) its decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or (2) no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the court.