People v. Avelar, 81 N.E.3d 607

In August 2013 a plenary order of protection prohibited Luis H. Avelar from being within 200 feet of his ex-girlfriend L.H. and several children (including E.A. and P.A.).
On February 16, 2014, Avelar picked up E.A. and P.A. from L.H.’s home in Watseka and drove them to Hoopeston, where he lived.
Avelar called L.H. and told her he and the children were at the Hoopeston McDonald’s; when L.H. arrived to retrieve the children an argument ensued and police were called.
The State charged Avelar with three counts of violating the order of protection, alleging contact with L.H., E.A., and P.A., respectively.
A jury convicted Avelar on all three counts; the trial court sentenced him to two years’ probation. Avelar appealed, arguing the convictions violated the one-act, one-crime doctrine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether multiple convictions for violating one order of protection arising from the same incident violate one-act, one-crime	State: statute allows separate convictions for separate protected persons; multiple victims justify multiple convictions	Avelar: the violation is an offense against the court (not separate victims), so one physical act cannot support multiple convictions	Affirmed: multiple convictions allowed because each protected person is a separate victim and statute does not bar multiple counts

People v. Artis, 232 Ill.2d 156 (Illinois 2010) (discusses plain-error review and that one-act, one-crime is not a rule of constitutional dimension)
People v. Crespo, 203 Ill.2d 335 (Illinois 2003) (definition of an "act" for one-act, one-crime analysis)
People v. Rodriguez, 169 Ill.2d 183 (Illinois 1996) (sets two-step test for one-act, one-crime: single physical act then lesser-included analysis)
Village of Sugar Grove v. Rich, 347 Ill. App.3d 689 (Ill. App. 2004) (statutory language can limit whether multiple convictions may be charged for same conduct; ordinance construed to preclude multiple convictions for single-day noise)