People v. Fulton, 52 N.E.3d 547

In July 2011 police surveilled a green Cadillac suspected to contain a weapon; defendant Parnell Fulton approached the vehicle, was stopped, and a loaded .38 revolver was recovered from his front pocket.
Fulton gave a statement that he had the gun for protection.
The State introduced certified prior convictions: a 2006 manufacture/delivery of a controlled substance (Class 1 felony) and a 2007 unlawful use of a weapon by a felon (UUWF), plus a 2007 UUWF-related unlawful-use conviction from 2007.
Fulton was convicted after a bench trial of: armed habitual criminal (720 ILCS 5/24-1.7), aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon; sentenced to concurrent six-year terms as a Class X offender.
On appeal Fulton argued (1) an improper double enhancement because his 2006 drug conviction was used both directly and as the basis for the 2007 UUWF predicate, and (2) facial substantive due process invalidity because the armed habitual criminal statute could criminalize innocent possession (e.g., where a FOID card might be obtained).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fulton was subjected to improper double enhancement in his armed habitual criminal conviction	The State: each prior conviction is a valid, separately enumerated predicate; no single factor was used to enhance both an element and sentence	Fulton: the 2006 drug conviction was effectively used twice — once as a predicate felony and again as the basis for the UUWF predicate, producing an impermissible double use	No double enhancement: both predicates are validly enumerated and were used only once each; requiring a third conviction would improperly read an extra element into the statute
Whether the armed habitual criminal statute is facially unconstitutional under substantive due process	The State: statute is rationally related to public safety and longstanding prohibitions on felons possessing firearms; a facial challenge fails because one unlikely circumstance does not invalidate the statute	Fulton: the statute can criminalize "innocent" possession (e.g., a twice‑convicted felon who nevertheless obtains a FOID), so it lacks a rational relationship to its purpose and is overbroad	Statute upheld: facial challenge fails (must show no circumstances where statute is valid); criminalizing possession by repeat felons is not "wholly innocent" conduct and is rationally related to public safety

People v. Phelps, 211 Ill. 2d 1 (discusses improper double enhancement doctrine)
People v. Gonzalez, 151 Ill. 2d 79 (explains rationale against double enhancement)
People v. Del Percio, 105 Ill. 2d 372 (double enhancement in armed-violence context)
People v. Haron, 85 Ill. 2d 261 (same; weapon-enhancement used impermissibly as basis for armed-violence)
People v. Madrigal, 241 Ill. 2d 463 (statute invalid where it potentially criminalizes wholly innocent conduct)
People v. Carpenter, 228 Ill. 2d 250 (invalidated statute that could impose felony status for innocent conduct regarding vehicle secret compartments)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (acknowledges longstanding prohibitions on firearm possession by felons)
State v. Senters, 699 N.W.2d 810 (upholding child-pornography–style prohibition despite consensual context)
United States v. Bach, 400 F.3d 622 (federal case cited re: rational basis for prohibiting visual depictions of minors)