People v. Brace
79 N.E.3d 765
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Defendant Casey Brace was charged under 720 ILCS 646/120 for knowingly possessing/purchasing pseudoephedrine after a prior methamphetamine conviction (2006).
- At a 2015 plea hearing Brace pled guilty; the State’s factual basis relied on a certified prior conviction, NPLEx records showing 110 purchases (18 blocks) since 2010, a Walgreens receipt/video, and Department of Corrections records.
- Brace was sentenced to one year in prison; she later moved to withdraw her guilty plea, which the trial court granted.
- Parties proceeded to a stipulated bench trial where the court accepted the prior factual statements and reimposed the one-year sentence.
- On appeal Brace argued the State failed to prove she lacked a prescription for the pseudoephedrine — an element she says is required to convict under section 120(a). The State argued the prescription exception is a defense, not an element to be disproved by the prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State must prove lack of a prescription to convict under 720 ILCS 646/120(a) | State: No; the statute criminalizes knowing possession after a prior conviction and the prescription exception is an affirmative defense | Brace: Yes; absence of a prescription is a necessary element the State must prove | The prescription exception is a defense that withdraws persons from the statute’s scope; State need not disprove a prescription |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Singleton, 367 Ill. App. 3d 182 (Illinois App. Ct.) (standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- People v. Perkins, 408 Ill. App. 3d 752 (Illinois App. Ct.) (de novo review where facts are uncontested)
- In re Ryan B., 212 Ill. 2d 226 (Ill.) (de novo review principle cited)
- People v. Campa, 217 Ill. 2d 243 (Ill.) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- People v. Ellis, 71 Ill. App. 3d 719 (Ill. App. Ct.) (distinguishing elements from exceptions/defenses)
- People v. Rodgers, 322 Ill. App. 3d 199 (Ill. App. Ct.) (prescription-like exceptions are defenses; State need not disprove them)