People v. Gullens
2017 IL App (3d) 160668
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Keith R. Gullens had a 30‑month conditional discharge after pleading guilty to theft; one condition forbade possession of firearms.
- Surveillance at South Post Guns showed another man (Gerald Bumper) steal a Glock 42 while defendant was in the store; store employee saw defendant earlier talking to him and later reviewed video.
- After learning the gun had been stolen, defendant briefly took possession of the firearm (about 5–10 minutes) from a third party (Rashad Anchondo) and returned it to the store. He testified his purpose was to return the gun and prevent it from being sold or used in crime.
- The State filed a petition to revoke defendant’s conditional discharge for being a felon in possession of a weapon; the trial court found a violation, rejected necessity, and sentenced defendant to three years’ imprisonment.
- On appeal, the Third District reversed, holding the necessity defense applied and, alternatively, that fundamental fairness supported reversing revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant’s brief possession of a stolen firearm justified revocation of conditional discharge as felon in possession | State: defendant possessed the gun and necessity doesn’t apply absent proof of actual, immediate harm | Gullens: necessity justified temporary possession to prevent greater public harm (return gun to store) | Court: Necessity applied; revocation was against manifest weight of evidence |
| Whether alternatives (call police/others) made necessity unavailable | State: alternatives existed so necessity not established | Gullens: alternatives were unrealistic or unavailable (no FOID holder, unlikely thief would return it; police recovery uncertain) | Court: No adequate alternative shown; belief that returning gun avoided greater harm was reasonable |
| Whether a “specific and immediate threat” is required for necessity | State: necessity requires proof of real, actual harm | Gullens: stolen firearm on the street poses immediate public safety risk | Court: Court inclined that a stolen firearm in circulation constitutes specific and immediate threat sufficient for necessity |
| Whether fundamental fairness or probation/conditional‑discharge purposes barred revocation | State: violation occurred so revocation proper | Gullens: his actions promoted rehabilitation and public safety; continued liberty serves conditional discharge goals | Court: Even if violation occurred, purposes of conditional discharge were served; revocation thwarted rehabilitation and was an unsatisfactory application of law |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Smith, 337 Ill. App. 3d 819 (2003) (standard for overturning revocation is manifest weight of the evidence)
- People v. Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322 (2008) (definition of manifest weight review)
- People v. Janik, 127 Ill. 2d 390 (1989) (necessity as choice between two admitted evils; conduct must promote higher value)
- People v. Kite, 153 Ill. 2d 40 (1992) (necessity requires a specific and immediate threat)
- People v. Butler, 137 Ill. App. 3d 704 (1985) (probation revocation inquiries: violation occurred and whether purposes of probation are served by continued liberty)
- People v. Meyer, 176 Ill. 2d 372 (1997) (probation serves rehabilitation and public protection)
- People v. Clark, 206 Ill. App. 3d 741 (1990) (revocation may be improper where violation arose from circumstances and continued liberty furthers rehabilitation)
- People v. Tufte, 165 Ill. 2d 66 (1995) (procedural parity between probation and conditional discharge revocation)