People v. Brace
2017 IL App (4th) 150388
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Casey Brace was charged under 720 ILCS 646/120(a) for knowingly purchasing/possessing pseudoephedrine after a prior methamphetamine conviction (2006).
- The State’s factual basis at plea: certified prior conviction, NPLEx records and store video/receipts showing numerous purchases (110 purchases, 18 blocks since May 19, 2010), including a January 26, 2014 Walgreens purchase.
- Brace pleaded guilty in January 2015 (with a 3-year cap) and was sentenced to 1 year in March 2015. She filed an appeal, then moved to withdraw her plea and obtain a bench trial; the court granted the motion.
- In May 2015 the parties agreed to a stipulated bench trial adopting the plea hearing facts and a Department of Corrections statement confirming the NPLEx purchase/block history and prior conviction; the court found her guilty and reimposed the 1-year sentence.
- On appeal Brace argued the State failed to prove she lacked a prescription for the pseudoephedrine, an element she contends was required to convict under section 120(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved the elements of 720 ILCS 646/120(a) (possession/purchase of methamphetamine precursor after prior conviction) | State: certified prior conviction + NPLEx/store evidence of repeated purchases sufficed to prove knowing possession/purchase and prior conviction | Brace: State failed to prove she did not have a valid prescription for the pseudoephedrine | Court: Evidence was sufficient to prove knowing possession and prior conviction; conviction affirmed |
| Whether the State must disprove the prescription exception to convict under §120(a) | State: prescription is an affirmative defense/exception the defendant must raise; State need not disprove absence of a prescription | Brace: The absence of a prescription is a required element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt | Court: The prescription exception withdraws certain persons from the statute’s scope (a defense), not an element; State had no burden to disprove a prescription |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Perkins, 408 Ill. App. 3d 752 (review of uncontested facts and de novo review of legal questions)
- People v. Ellis, 71 Ill. App. 3d 719 (prescription/restricted-permit exceptions are defenses that need not be negatived by the State)
- People v. Rodgers, 322 Ill. App. 3d 199 (State not required to prove lack of out-of-state restricted permit; exceptions that withdraw persons from statute are defenses)
- People v. Singleton, 367 Ill. App. 3d 182 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- People v. Campa, 217 Ill. 2d 243 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)