People v. Gomez
2017 IL App (1st) 142950
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Noe Gomez was charged under 730 ILCS 150/3(a)(1) with failing to register as a sex offender by registering with the Chicago Police Department within three days of establishing residence or temporary domicile in Chicago.
- Gomez was released from prison July 13, 2012; prison staff gave him a registration notice explaining the three-day requirement.
- A Chicago detective searched for Gomez’s registration “hard card” and found none in Chicago or other jurisdictions; DOJ database showed no out-of-state registration.
- Detective Lunsford testified Gomez said he had attempted to register at 5435 S. Spalding in Chicago but was denied because the address was invalid/too close to a school; Gomez was later arrested in Chicago on an unrelated matter and was in custody when the detective checked records.
- The trial court convicted Gomez and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment; Gomez appealed arguing insufficient proof he resided or was temporarily domiciled in Chicago and raising an ex post facto challenge (the court did not reach the constitutional claim).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State proved Gomez resided or was temporarily domiciled in Chicago (statute requires stay of 3+ days at a specific location) | Evidence that Gomez never registered anywhere, attempted to register at a Chicago address, and was found in Chicago supports an inference he resided in Chicago and thus had duty to register there | State failed to prove a specific Chicago location where Gomez stayed for an aggregate of 3+ days; mere attempt to register and presence in Chicago are insufficient | Reversed: State failed to prove the residence/temporary-domicile element required to obligate Gomez to register in Chicago |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d 92 (Illinois Supreme Court) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Evans, 365 Ill. App. 3d 374 (Illinois Appellate Court) (sufficient proof of residence where multiple indicia placed defendant at specific apartment for required period)
- In re Detention of Lieberman, 201 Ill. 2d 300 (Illinois Supreme Court) (statutory interpretation should give effect to each word)
- People v. Jones, 174 Ill. 2d 427 (Illinois Supreme Court) (conviction cannot rest on guess, speculation, or conjecture)