People v. Daniels
2017 IL App (1st) 142130
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Ronald Daniels was arrested on a bus with a revolver and ammunition and charged with multiple AUUW counts and two felon-in-possession counts. He pleaded guilty to one AUUW count (possession of an unloaded firearm with ammunition immediately accessible) and received six years; the State nol-prossed the remaining seven counts per the plea deal.
- After serving his sentence, Daniels filed a section 2-1401 petition to vacate his conviction, arguing the AUUW provision under which he pled was unconstitutional under People v. Aguilar.
- The trial court denied the petition; Daniels appealed. The State conceded the conviction should be vacated under intervening precedent (People v. Burns) but asked the appellate court to allow reinstatement of six previously nol-prossed counts (raised for the first time on appeal).
- This court initially vacated the conviction but declined to reach the State’s reinstatement request for lack of jurisdiction; the Illinois Supreme Court directed the court to reconsider in light of People v. Shinaul.
- The appellate court held Aguilar (and Burns) invalidate the statutory subsection under which Daniels was convicted and therefore reversed the trial court, vacated the conviction, and remanded — but concluded it lacked appellate jurisdiction to address the State’s request to reinstate nol-prossed counts because that issue was not raised and decided below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Daniels’s AUUW conviction must be vacated because the statutory subsection is unconstitutional | State conceded conviction should be vacated under Aguilar/Burns | Daniels argued subsection (a)(3)(B) is invalid under Aguilar | Vacated: subsection (a)(3)(B) invalid under Aguilar; conviction vacated |
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to consider State’s request to reinstate nol-prossed counts raised first on appeal | State: court may reinstate counts; no bar to reprosecution | Daniels: issue not before trial court; appellate court lacks jurisdiction | No jurisdiction: issue not presented to circuit court and thus not reviewable on appeal |
| Whether Shinaul changes jurisdictional analysis to allow appellate review of reinstatement when not decided below | State relied on Shinaul to support appellate review | Daniels argued Shinaul only applies where trial court decided reinstatement motion | Shinaul limited: permits review only when reinstatement was raised and decided in the circuit court’s final order |
| Whether appellate court should exercise original jurisdiction to decide reinstatement as necessary to resolve the 2-1401 appeal | State urged original jurisdiction under art. VI, §6 | Daniels argued the 2-1401 proceeding is a separate action so reinstatement not necessary to review | No original jurisdiction: reinstatement not necessary to the 2-1401 case on review |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 (held certain AUUW restriction violates Second Amendment)
- People v. Burns, 2015 IL 117387 (clarified Aguilar applies irrespective of AUUW sentencing classification)
- People v. Shinaul, 2017 IL 120162 (appellate jurisdiction exists to review reinstatement where trial court decided reinstatement in the same final order)
- People v. Hughes, 2012 IL 112817 (noting State may seek to vacate a nolle prosequi or bring new indictment subject to defenses)