People v. Avelar
81 N.E.3d 607
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In August 2013 a plenary order of protection barred Luis Avelar from being within 200 feet of his ex‑girlfriend L.H. and several children, including E.A. and P.A., through August 2015.
- On February 16, 2014, Avelar picked up E.A. and P.A. from L.H.’s home in Watseka and drove them to Hoopeston; he called L.H. and told her to meet him at Hoopeston McDonald’s to retrieve the children.
- L.H. met Avelar at McDonald’s, an argument ensued, and police were called; Avelar was arrested for violating the order of protection.
- The State charged three counts under 720 ILCS 5/12‑3.4(a)(1)(i), alleging Avelar had contact with L.H., E.A., and P.A., respectively; a jury convicted him on all three counts.
- Avelar appealed, arguing that multiple convictions violated the one‑act, one‑crime doctrine; the appellate court affirmed and sentenced Avelar to two years’ probation (and assessed appellate costs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statute permits multiple convictions for simultaneous violations of one order of protection | The State argued the statute does not forbid charging separate offenses for separate protected persons | Avelar argued multiple convictions violate one‑act, one‑crime because his conduct was a single act | The statute is silent on multiplicity; multiple convictions are permissible when multiple protected victims exist |
| Whether the one‑act, one‑crime doctrine bars the multiple convictions | The State: one‑act rule doesn’t apply because separate victims were harmed | Avelar: his single physical act cannot support multiple convictions | One‑act, one‑crime does not bar multiple convictions when there are multiple victims; convictions affirmed |
| Whether the offense of violating an order of protection is an offense against the court (no victims) | The State: protected persons are victims for one‑act, one‑crime purposes | Avelar: the offense is against the court and thus lacks separate victims to justify multiple convictions | Court rejected Avelar’s view, finding the order protects specific persons and multiple victims permit multiple convictions |
| If multiplicity error exists, whether plain‑error review applies | N/A (procedural posture) | Avelar conceded forfeiture and sought plain‑error review | Court assumed the question of error first and resolved it on the merits; no plain error because no one‑act, one‑crime violation |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Almond, 32 N.E.3d 535 (Ill. 2015) (statutory text controls whether multiple simultaneous convictions are authorized)
- Village of Sugar Grove v. Rich, 808 N.E.2d 525 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (ordinance language can preclude multiple convictions for the same day; single violation may contemplate multiple victims)
- People v. Hardin, 976 N.E.2d 1083 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012) (distinguishing offenses directed at an object from offenses directed at persons for multiplicity analysis)
- People v. Rodriguez, 661 N.E.2d 305 (Ill. 1996) (two‑step one‑act, one‑crime test: determine number of physical acts, then whether offenses are lesser‑included)
- People v. Leach, 952 N.E.2d 647 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (one‑act, one‑crime rule applies only to offenses against a single victim)