Background
Paul M. Fredrickson allegedly crashed a Buick into a light pole in May 2025 and left the scene. He received seven traffic citations requiring a court appearance and was later charged with a second offense of driving while his license was suspended or revoked for DUI. After he failed to appear, the circuit court issued an arrest warrant.
While that warrant remained outstanding, Fredrickson allegedly caused a multi-vehicle accident in October 2025 while driving a Jeep. Two drivers were taken to a hospital, officers found Fredrickson hiding nearby, and a toxicology screen showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.296. He was charged with several felonies, including aggravated DUI and aggravated DUI causing great bodily harm. The State then petitioned to revoke his pretrial release in the May case. After a hearing conducted by proffer, the circuit court found that no release conditions could mitigate the risk he posed and granted the petition.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court held that Fredrickson was on pretrial release even though he had not appeared before a judge and received a court order specifically listing his release conditions before the alleged October offenses. Because he had been charged and released before trial, he was on pretrial release under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The law presumes that a released defendant knows not to commit additional crimes, so a judge did not need to state that condition expressly.
Reviewing the proffered evidence de novo, the court also held that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably prevent Fredrickson from being charged with another felony or Class A misdemeanor. The court relied on his three prior DUI convictions, the long-standing revocation of his driver’s license, later convictions for driving while his license was suspended or revoked, and the circumstances underlying the new charges. It emphasized that section 110-6(a) requires a qualifying charge during pretrial release—not proof that the defendant committed the charged offense. The court affirmed the revocation order.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant who is charged and released before trial is on pretrial release even if a judge has not yet entered an order expressly listing release conditions.
- A court need not personally advise a released defendant that committing additional crimes may support revocation because that restriction is presumed under Illinois law.
- Revocation under section 110-6(a) requires a new felony or Class A misdemeanor charge during pretrial release and clear and convincing evidence that release conditions cannot reasonably ensure appearance or prevent another qualifying charge; it does not require proof that the newly charged offense was committed.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that defendants cannot avoid revocation merely because they failed to appear before a judge to receive expressly stated release conditions. It also underscores the distinct statutory threshold for revocation: the relevant trigger is being charged with a qualifying offense while on pretrial release, while the State must separately establish that available conditions cannot reasonably address the statutory risks.