People v. Baker
2023 IL App (1st) 220328
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2023Background:
- On April 20, 2019 police observed Curtis Baker (then 28) flee after a suspected hand-to-hand drug transaction; officers watched him toss a loaded semi‑automatic handgun into a fenced front yard and recovered it.
- Baker was indicted on multiple counts including unlawful use of a weapon by a felon (UUWF) alleging a prior felony conviction for manufacturing and delivery of heroin (case no. 09 CR 0470201) and other AUUW counts; the State sought Class 2 sentencing based on a prior felony.
- At a bench trial Baker waived a jury; officers testified they observed him toss the gun; Baker stipulated to a certified disposition showing a March 24, 2009 guilty finding in the 201 offense and the court considered that only as a proven element of the charged offense.
- The court found Baker guilty and merged counts; at sentencing Baker received 4½ years’ imprisonment; the PSI reflected two additional qualifying adult felony convictions from 2009 and 2011.
- On appeal Baker challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence as to the prior-adult-conviction element because he was 17 at the time of the 201 offense and (2) the UUWF statute as applied under the Second Amendment post‑Bruen.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding Baker forfeited/waived the first claim and, on the merits, Bruen does not protect felons so the Second Amendment challenge failed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the prior conviction alleged in the indictment satisfied UUWF's "convicted of a felony" element | State: defendant had qualifying adult convictions (two others available); defendant stipulated to the 201 disposition; forfeited any objection; burden on State met | Baker: the 201 conviction occurred when he was 17 and would now be a juvenile adjudication, so it is not a qualifying adult conviction; counsel ineffective for stipulating | Affirmed: forfeiture/waiver applied; even if stipulation was error, Strickland prejudice fails because two other qualifying adult convictions existed to prove the element |
| 2) Whether UUWF, as applied to Baker, violates the Second Amendment under Bruen | State: Bruen’s new framework applies only to regulation of law‑abiding citizens; longstanding prohibitions disarming felons remain valid | Baker: Bruen’s history-and-tradition test renders the felon-dispossession statute unconstitutional as applied | Affirmed: Bruen is limited to law‑abiding citizens; felons fall outside its protection; statute constitutional as applied to Baker |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (recognizes history-and-tradition test and limits its holding to laws regulating "law‑abiding citizens")
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment analysis and recognition of longstanding prohibitions, including felon disarmament)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Taylor, 221 Ill. 2d 157 (2006) (juvenile adjudication is not a prior conviction for statutes requiring a prior conviction)
- Allegis Realty Investors v. Novak, 223 Ill. 2d 318 (2006) (statutes enjoy a presumption of constitutionality; challenger bears burden to show invalidity)