People v. Gullens
2017 IL App (3d) 160668
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2018Background
- In 2016 Keith R. Gullens was on a 30‑month conditional discharge for a prior theft conviction that prohibited firearm possession.
- Two days before a burglary at South Post Guns, a companion (Gerald Bumper) stole a Glock 42 from the store; video showed Gullens in the store but no evidence he took the gun then.
- Later the same day Gullens learned the gun had been stolen, took the gun from another companion (Rashad Anchondo), and returned it to the store about 5–10 minutes later.
- Police charged Gullens with being a felon in possession of a weapon and the State petitioned to revoke his conditional discharge; the circuit court found a violation and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the affirmative defense of necessity applied to Gullens’ brief possession and, alternatively, whether fundamental fairness (purposes of conditional discharge) counseled against revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether necessity justified brief possession of a stolen firearm | Necessity requires a "specific and immediate" harm; defendant lacked such imminent harm and other alternatives existed | Returning the gun minimized greater public harm (stolen firearm circulating); he was without blame and had no practical alternatives | Necessity applied; appellate court reversed revocation as against manifest weight of evidence |
| Whether revocation is warranted under fundamental fairness (purposes of conditional discharge) | Revocation appropriate because defendant technically violated condition prohibiting firearm possession | Continued liberty better serves rehabilitation and public safety when possession briefly prevented greater harm | Continued liberty serves conditional discharge purposes here; revocation frustrated rehabilitation and public protection goals |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Janik, 127 Ill. 2d 390 (defense of necessity involves choosing lesser of two evils)
- People v. Kite, 153 Ill. 2d 40 (necessity requires specific and immediate threat)
- People v. Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322 (standard for reversing revocation is whether finding is against manifest weight)
- People v. Smith, 337 Ill. App. 3d 819 (revocation will be overturned when contrary to manifest weight)
- People v. Clark, 206 Ill. App. 3d 741 (revocation can be improper when probation’s rehabilitative goals are served by continued liberty)
- People v. Butler, 137 Ill. App. 3d 704 (two‑fold inquiry in revocation: whether violation occurred and whether probation’s purposes are served)
- People v. Meyer, 176 Ill. 2d 372 (probation serves rehabilitation and public protection)
- People v. Tufte, 165 Ill. 2d 66 (conditional discharge revocation governed by same standards as probation)