People v. Brown
2017 IL App (1st) 150146
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Sept. 25, 2013, police investigating a car alarm found defendant Dewayne Brown in a parked Ford Taurus emitting a strong cannabis odor; officers recovered cannabis, alcohol, and a loaded Hi-Point .45 in the vehicle.
- The gun was in the female driver’s open purse; Brown admitted placing the gun in her purse and later, after Miranda warnings, said he bought the gun two days earlier for protection.
- The parties stipulated Brown lacked a FOID card that day and introduced certified copies of Brown’s prior convictions: attempted armed robbery (1998), robbery (2006), and possession of a controlled substance (2012).
- Following a bench trial, Brown was convicted of armed habitual criminal (720 ILCS 5/24-1.7) and sentenced to 8 years; the trial court assessed various fines, fees, and costs and credited 195 days of presentence custody ($975 credit).
- On appeal Brown challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence as to whether attempted armed robbery qualifies as a forcible felony for predicate purposes, (2) facial constitutionality of the armed habitual criminal statute, and (3) application of presentence custody credit to certain monetary assessments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attempted armed robbery is a forcible felony for §24-1.7 predicate | Attempted armed robbery inherently contemplates threat/use of force and qualifies as a forcible felony | Attempted armed robbery is not inherently forcible; State offered no facts showing force/threat in prior conviction | Attempted armed robbery qualifies as an inherently forcible felony; certified convictions suffice for §24-1.7 predicate proof |
| Whether armed habitual criminal statute is facially unconstitutional for criminalizing lawful possession by felons who could obtain FOID relief | Statute rationally advances public safety by prohibiting firearm possession by recidivists | Statute is overbroad; may criminalize “wholly innocent” conduct because twice-convicted felons might obtain FOID relief | Statute is facially constitutional under rational-basis review; prior appellate precedent upheld it and this court declines to depart |
| Whether presentence incarceration credit applies to the $15 state police operations charge | Credit should offset fines that are punitive in nature; $15 charge is a fine | State conceded $15 charge is a fine | $15 state police operations charge is a fine and must be offset by presentence credit |
| Whether presentence incarceration credit applies to other assessed charges ($50 court system fee, $2 automation fees, clerk/storage/other charges) | Several charges are fines and subject to offset (incl. $50, clerk fees, document storage, court services) | Many of these are compensatory fees, not punitive fines, and not offsettable | $50 court system charge is a fine and offsettable; $2 automation charges and clerk/document storage/court services/filing charges are fees (compensatory) and not offsettable |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Belk, 203 Ill. 2d 187 (recognizes that being armed implies contemplation/willingness to use force)
- People v. Thomas, 407 Ill. App. 3d 136 (discusses forcible felony definition adoption in §24-1.7)
- People v. Adams, 404 Ill. App. 3d 405 (burden to prove priors and present conduct for armed habitual criminal)
- People v. Robinson, 92 Ill. App. 3d 397 (attempt: substantial step toward commission of offense)
- People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481 (facial constitutional challenges and presumption of statute constitutionality)
- People v. Patterson, 2014 IL 115102 (de novo review of statutory constitutionality; duty to uphold statutes if possible)
- People v. Coram, 2013 IL 113867 (Illinois Supreme Court precedent discussed/distinguished)
- People v. Madrigal, 241 Ill. 2d 463 (discussed in relation to statutory challenges)
- People v. Carpenter, 228 Ill. 2d 250 (distinguished on the facts)
- People v. Graves, 235 Ill. 2d 244 (distinguishing fines from fees; compensatory nature)
- People v. Jones, 223 Ill. 2d 569 (labels not dispositive; focus on compensatory vs punitive nature)
- People v. White, 333 Ill. App. 3d 777 (definition of fine and fee distinctions)
- People v. Tolliver, 363 Ill. App. 3d 94 (court found certain clerk/storage charges are fees, not fines)