2024 IL App (4th) 231090
Ill. App. Ct.2024Background
- David Dillard was convicted by a jury in Illinois of aggravated battery, aggravated discharge of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon after shooting into a vehicle occupied by Anthony Thomas, causing Thomas to lose his vision.
- The evidence included surveillance footage, eyewitness and police testimony, forensic evidence of gunshot residue, and a text message from Dillard referencing the shooting.
- Dillard was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 30, 15, and 14 years for each of the three convictions, respectively.
- On appeal, Dillard challenged the constitutionality of the Illinois statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms under the Second Amendment and also asserted that one of his convictions violated the one-act, one-crime rule.
- The State maintained the felon-in-possession statute is constitutional and argued the convictions for aggravated battery and aggravated discharge of a firearm stemmed from distinct physical acts.
- The appellate court affirmed in part, vacating only the conviction for aggravated discharge of a firearm under the one-act, one-crime rule but upheld the remaining convictions and the constitutionality of the firearm statute.
Issues
| Issue | Dillard's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of felon-in-possession law | Statute is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment | The statute is consistent with longstanding prohibitions on felons | Statute is not facially unconstitutional under Second Amendment |
| Application of Bruen and Rahimi | Rahimi alters analysis of whose firearms rights may be limited | Bruen and Rahimi do not extend Second Amendment protection to felons | Bruen and Rahimi do not alter precedent; statute upheld |
| One-act, one-crime rule | Convictions based on same act must be vacated | Multiple shots = multiple physical acts, supporting distinct convictions | Conviction for aggravated discharge vacated; other affirmed |
| Plain error review of unpreserved claim | One-act, one-crime error affects process integrity, reviewable | Issue forfeited, but analyzed under plain error rule | Found plain error; one conviction vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognized individual Second Amendment right for law-abiding citizens)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2010) (applied Second Amendment to states)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2022) (historical tradition test for gun regulations)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (U.S. 2024) (upheld temporary disarmament of dangerous persons consistent with Second Amendment)
- People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551 (Ill. 1977) (one-act, one-crime rule in Illinois criminal convictions)
- People v. Crespo, 203 Ill. 2d 335 (Ill. 2001) (requirement that State apportion separate acts when prosecuting multiple crimes from single course of conduct)
- People v. Artis, 232 Ill. 2d 156 (Ill. 2009) (disposition when one-act, one-crime violation occurs)