People v. Nowells, 2013 IL App (1st) 113209

Nowells was convicted after a bench trial of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon (UUW by a felon).
He was sentenced to a 54-month Class 2 term based on a prior Class 2 felony drug conviction (04/21/2003).
The charging instrument alleged UUW by a felon premised on prior conviction 02CR-15772 (delivery of a controlled substance).
At sentencing the court noted four prior felony convictions and that one made him non-probationable on this offense.
Defense argued for minimum sentence; prosecution argued for the enhanced period; the mittimus lists Class 2 felony for the current offense.
Defendant appeals contending lack of proper section 111-3(c) notice that the charge sought a Class 2 enhancement; the State contends notice was not required because the prior conviction was an element and only one class of offense was possible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 111-3(c) notice was required for an enhanced sentence.	State contends prior conviction was an element, so no notice required.	Nowells argues notice of Class 2 enhancement was required.	No error; notice not required because the prior conviction was an element making Class 2 the only possible classification.
Whether the sentence violated preservation rules for plain error.	State argues no plain error since there was no error.	Plain error due to improper notice and sentencing.	Defendant failed to show plain error; sentence affirmed.
Whether the charging instrument complied with 111-3(a) and adequately notified the charge.	Charge identified UUW by a felon and cited the 02CR-15772 conviction.	Argues insufficient notice of potential Class 2 sentence.	Charging instrument compliance; notice adequate given element-based classification.

People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176 (Ill. 1988) (preservation and plain-error framework in sentencing)
People v. Jameson, 162 Ill. 2d 282 (Ill. 1994) (notice requirement for enhanced sentences)
People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539 (Ill. 2010) (plain-error review for sentencing issues)
People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166 (Ill. 2010) (plain-error framework and substantial rights)
People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (Ill. 2007) (plain-error standard and when to apply)
People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (Ill. 2005) (directions on substantial rights in sentencing)
People v. Johnson, 208 Ill. 2d 53 (Ill. 2003) (substantive review for sentencing questions)
People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32 (Ill. 2009) (burden shifting in plain-error review)
People v. Wilson, 404 Ill. App. 3d 244 (Ill. App. 2010) (no plain-error if no error occurred)
People v. Powell, 2012 IL App (1st) 102363 (Ill. App. 2012) (double enhancement context for UUW by a felon)
People v. Thomas, 171 Ill. 2d 207 (Ill. 1996) (legislative authority on offense classifications)
People v. Chaney, 379 Ill. App. 3d 524 (Ill. App. 2008) (statutory construction in sentencing)
People v. Jameson, 162 Ill. 2d 282 (Ill. 1994) (notice requirement for enhanced sentences)