2025 IL App (4th) 240568
Ill. App. Ct.2025Background
- Alishah Cadengo was convicted by a jury of stalking (a Class 4 felony) and identity theft (a Class 3 felony) arising from conduct between May and August 2021 involving harassment and accessing the victim's personal information.
- The evidence included harassing messages, surveillance, and use of the victim’s financial and personal data; Cadengo admitted to many of these actions during a police interview.
- The trial court imposed conditional discharge, court assessments, and ordered Cadengo to surrender her FOID card and any firearms, based on her felony conviction.
- Cadengo appealed, challenging the constitutionality of the identity theft statute, sufficiency of evidence, admissibility of exhibits underpinning the stalking charge, the firearm prohibition under the Second Amendment, and her attorney’s failure to seek a waiver of court assessments.
- On appeal, the court vacated the identity theft conviction, affirmed the stalking conviction and sentencing orders, and addressed constitutional challenges raised by Cadengo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of identity theft statute | Statute punishes innocent conduct, is overbroad | State conceded statute is facially unconstitutional | Statute is unconstitutional; conviction for identity theft vacated |
| Sufficiency of evidence for identity theft | Evidence insufficient to prove knowing unlawful use | State conceded and court did not reach merits | Not reached; conviction vacated on constitutional grounds |
| Admissibility of electronic message exhibits | Insufficient foundation for dates and authorship | Exhibits authenticated by testimony, confessions, context | Trial court did not abuse discretion; error, if any, was harmless |
| Permanent firearm prohibition (2A) | Permanent ban is unconstitutional (esp. for non-violent felons) | Law applies to all felons, including non-violent ones; no exception for stalking | Ban upheld; defendant is not a "law-abiding citizen" under 2A |
| Ineffective assistance re: fee waiver | Counsel should have applied for waiver due to indigency | No clear evidence of indigency or hardship found in the record | No ineffective assistance; no showing of prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Carpenter, 228 Ill. 2d 250 (presumption of constitutionality of statutes and burden to show invalidity)
- People v. Madrigal, 241 Ill. 2d 463 (identity theft statute striking for punishing innocent conduct; controlling here)
- People v. Chairez, 2018 IL 121417 (standing to challenge constitutionality limited to offenses before the court)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess handguns)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (Second Amendment historical tradition test for firearm regulations)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (upholding firearm ban for domestic violence restraining order subject; distinguished here)