People v. Davis
408 Ill. App. 3d 747
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- January 21, 2009, Davis seen placing a backpack with four guns in a car's trunk; three loaded.
- Police found four guns in the backpack after arrest; ownership claimed by nephew.
- Grand jury indicted Davis on four armed habitual criminal counts and seven UUWF counts.
- Bench trial: officer testified about the guns; prior felonies included aggravated discharge of a firearm (Class 1) and delivery of a controlled substance (Class 2).
- Defense presented no evidence; trial court convicted on all counts and sentenced seven years on each AHCr count and six years on each UUWF count, to run concurrently.
- Davis appeals asserting 2nd Amendment challenges, ex post facto challenges, and multiple AHCr convictions for simultaneous firearms ownership.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do UUWF and AHCr violate the Second Amendment as applied to Davis? | Davis argues both statutes burden the right to bear arms. | State asserts intermediate scrutiny applies; felon restriction is permissible. | No, statutes pass intermediate scrutiny and do not violate the Second Amendment. |
| Do AHCr and UUWF violate ex post facto provisions? | Davis contends enactment after his prior convictions punishes retroactively. | Statutes punish by creating a new crime; prior felonies are elements of the new offense. | No, statutes do not violate ex post facto principles. |
| Can there be multiple AHCr convictions for simultaneous possession of four guns? | Prosecution seeks four separate AHCr convictions for four guns. | Statute does not allow multiple convictions for simultaneous possession. | Only one AHCr conviction permitted; three convictions vacated. |
| Was the evidence sufficient to convict on the firearm offenses as charged? | Court found evidence supports the convictions; not a focus of reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (facially supports restrictions on felon possession of firearms; dictates standard for gun rights)
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1980) (test for government regulation of commercial speech; proportionality principle applied)
- Cates v. Cates, 156 Ill.2d 76 (Ill. 1993) (dicta given weight; influence on interpreting precedents)
- Leonard v. People, 391 Ill.App.3d 926 (Ill. App. 2010) (recidivist statutes uphold if defendant commits new crime post-enactment)
- People v. Bailey, 396 Ill.App.3d 459 (Ill. App. 2009) (armed habitual criminal statute does not punish prior convictions)
- People v. Adams, 404 Ill.App.3d 405 (Ill. App. 2010) (ex post facto analysis for habitual offender schemes)
- People v. Dunigan, 165 Ill.2d 235 (Ill. 1995) (habitual criminal act interpreted as separate crime measure)
- People v. Williams, 204 Ill.2d 191 (Ill. 2003) (relevance to broader constitutional framework)