People v. Fredrickson

Defendant was charged with DWLSR-DUI after a May 2025 accident and released pretrial, but failed to appear, prompting a warrant. While that warrant was outstanding, he caused a second accident in October 2025 with a BAC of 0.296, injuring others, and was charged with multiple felonies including aggravated DUI. The State petitioned to revoke his pretrial release in the original case based on these new charges, and the Kane County circuit court granted revocation. Defendant appealed, arguing he could not be revoked because he had never been subject to a formal court-ordered conditions order, and that the evidence did not support a finding that no conditions could mitigate the risk of further offenses.

The Second District affirmed on both issues. Applying de novo review, the court held that a defendant is on 'pretrial release' once arrested and released before trial, regardless of whether a court has issued a specific written conditions order, relying on McClure and its own unpublished decision in Dudish Poulsen. Section 110-2(a) presumes a defendant knows he must not commit new crimes while released, so the trial court need not separately enumerate that condition—particularly where, as here, defendant had already violated the condition to appear in court, resulting in a warrant. On the sufficiency issue, the court found clear and convincing evidence, based on defendant's three prior DUI convictions, continued driving despite license revocation, the severity of the October 2025 accident, and his attempt to evade police, supported the trial court's conclusion that no conditions could prevent further offenses.

The decision clarifies that formal, itemized conditions orders are not a prerequisite to revocation proceedings and reinforces that habitual DUI conduct and evasion of legal process can independently satisfy the clear-and-convincing standard for revocation under section 110-6(a).