People v. Frederick
40 N.E.3d 63
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2015Background
- In 1991 Frederick pled guilty to misdemeanor battery (charge arose from an incident with a former cohabitant) and received conditional discharge.
- Frederick received a FOID card in 2011; in 2013 the General Assembly amended the FOID Act to bar courts or the Director from issuing FOID relief if it would violate federal law (effective Jan. 1, 2013).
- When Frederick attempted to buy a firearm in 2013 the Department revoked his FOID card, citing 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) (misdemeanor crime of domestic violence) and FOID Act § 8(n).
- Frederick petitioned the Stephenson County circuit court for issuance of a FOID card; the circuit court ordered the Department to issue one, applying the pre-2013 FOID Act standard.
- The Department appealed, arguing (1) the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because Frederick hadn’t exhausted administrative remedies, and (2) under the 2013 FOID Act the court could not order issuance because federal law barred Frederick from possessing firearms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Frederick) | Defendant's Argument (Department) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear Frederick’s petition | FOID Act § 10(a) allows direct circuit-court petitions when revocation is “based upon” domestic battery; his revocation was so based | Circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because petitioners must appeal to the Director unless convicted of domestic battery (battery alone isn’t enough) | The court held the statute’s phrase “based upon” covers revocations premised on a domestic battery, so the circuit court had jurisdiction |
| Which version of the FOID Act governs review of the 2013 revocation | 2011 statute should control because Department issued the card in 2011 | 2013 amendments apply because the challenged action is the 2013 revocation | The 2013 FOID Act applies (statute in effect when the administrative action occurred governs) |
| Whether the circuit court could order issuance of a FOID card despite federal prohibition | State courts previously could grant relief under pre-2013 FOID Act; Frederick argued his conviction did not fall within federal definition | The 2013 amendments prevent state courts or the Director from issuing FOID relief that would be contrary to federal law; Frederick’s battery qualifies under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)/§ 922(g)(9) | The court held the 2013 amendments preclude issuing a FOID card when possession would violate federal law; the trial court’s order was reversed |
| Whether Frederick’s battery conviction qualifies as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under federal law | Frederick disputed applicability but did not contest federal classification on appeal | Under United States v. Hayes, a generic battery conviction counts if the victim relationship existed, so federal law bars possession | The court concluded Frederick’s conviction qualified under federal law and federal prohibition controls, so FOID issuance was barred |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (interpreting when a state battery conviction qualifies as a federal “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence")
- People v. Marshall, 242 Ill. 2d 285 (standard of review for statutory interpretation)
- Coram v. State of Illinois, 2013 IL 113867 (discussed interaction of FOID Act and 2013 amendments; majority and separate opinions considered)
- Hayashi v. Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, 2014 IL 116023 (amendments that alter present/future regulatory eligibility are not necessarily impermissibly retroactive)