People v. Burns
4 N.E.3d 151
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- On June 13, 2009, Chicago police observed defendant Edward Burns exit a vehicle holding a handgun; he allegedly tossed the gun into the car and fled; police recovered a handgun from the passenger floorboard and a matching magazine during pursuit.
- Defendant was indicted on multiple counts including armed habitual criminal, unlawful use/possession by a felon, and eight counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW). Several counts referenced prior felony convictions.
- At bench trial the State introduced certified prior-conviction records (one for possession of a controlled substance and one for AUUW). The court admitted them; defendant was found guilty of AUUW and other counts.
- The trial court later vacated convictions that depended on a prior conviction where the State failed to show defendant was the same person as the prior-convicted name (Damion Smith), but retained AUUW convictions that did not require that particular prior-conviction identity finding.
- Defendant was sentenced to 10 years for a Class 2 AUUW offense (possession by a person with a prior felony). He appealed, arguing Aguilar rendered the AUUW statute unconstitutional.
- After Illinois Supreme Court’s Aguilar decision (which held the Class 4 form of AUUW facially unconstitutional), the appellate court considered whether Aguilar invalidated the Class 2 (felon-enhanced) form of AUUW.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Class 2 form of AUUW (possession by a felon) violates the Second Amendment | State: Aguilar addressed only the Class 4 form; felon-dispossession laws remain presumptively lawful and enforceable | Burns: Aguilar’s invalidation of AUUW (facial) requires reversal of his AUUW conviction | Court: Held Class 2 form is constitutional as applied to felons; conviction affirmed |
| Whether Aguilar’s holding that the Class 4 AUUW is facially unconstitutional voids related AUUW provisions | State: Aguilar expressly limited to Class 4; did not decide other subsections | Burns: Relies on Aguilar to challenge his AUUW conviction | Court: Aguilar’s limitation controls; it did not invalidate the felon-enhanced subsection |
| Whether possession of firearms by felons falls within Second Amendment protection | State: Longstanding prohibitions place felon possession outside protection | Burns: Implicitly argues Aguilar’s reasoning should extend | Court: Possession by felons is conduct outside Second Amendment scope; restrictions are permissible |
| Whether the AUUW sentence enhancement creates a separate offense or a permissible sentencing classification | State: Sentencing provision enhances punishment, not new offense | Burns: Challenged constitutionality of the enhanced form | Court: Treats felon-enhancement as regulation/enhancement, not a new offense; upholds statute as applied to felons |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 (Ill. 2013) (Illinois Supreme Court held the Class 4 form of AUUW facially violated the Second Amendment; expressly limited that holding to the Class 4 form)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (Second Amendment protects an individual right but allows "presumptively lawful" historical restrictions, e.g., felon prohibitions)
- Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (Seventh Circuit decision relied on by Aguilar in evaluating handgun-carry prohibitions)
- People v. Van Schoyck, 232 Ill. 2d 330 (Ill. 2009) (statutory sentencing classifications that enhance punishment do not create separate offenses)