Martin v. OFFICE OF STATE'S ATTORNEY
959 N.E.2d 1264
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Martin was convicted in Florida in 1988 of sexual battery, kidnapping, and burglary and sentenced to 27 years (later reduced to 25).
- He completed his prison sentence in November 1996.
- In January 2010, Martin applied for a Firearm Owner's Identification Card and the Department denied based on the 1988 Florida felony convictions.
- Martin petitioned the circuit court for relief under 430 ILCS 65/10(c)(1), asserting 20 years had passed since his last forcible felony conviction.
- The State's Attorney argued relief requires both 20 years since conviction and 20 years since the end of imprisonment.
- The circuit court denied relief, and the appellate court affirmed, holding the provision is conjunctive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 430 ILCS 65/10(c)(1) is to be read conjunctively or disjunctively. | Martins argues the clause is disjunctive (either period suffices). | State contends both periods must pass (conjunctive). | Statute read conjunctively; both periods must pass. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanson v. De Kalb County State's Attorney's Office, 391 Ill.App.3d 902 (2009) (illustrates failure when 20 years have not passed from conviction or release)
- Hiland v. Trent, 373 Ill.App.3d 582 (2007) (discussed non-forcible felonies and other provisions; not controlling here)
- County of Du Page v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, 231 Ill.2d 593 (2008) (statutory interpretation — use of context to decide 'and' vs 'or')
- People v. Marshall, 242 Ill.2d 285 (2011) (canons of interpretation and de novo review of statute language)