People v. Patterson
123 N.E.3d 63
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- In 2012 Patterson was charged with being an armed habitual criminal (AHC) after police found a loaded .380 handgun; the AHC charge relied on two prior 2008 controlled-substance convictions.
- The two 2008 convictions arose from separate incidents (July 24, 2007 and Aug. 30, 2007), were charged in separate cases, but both pleas and sentences were entered the same day, July 18, 2008.
- In 2013 Patterson pled guilty to the AHC count (2012 case) and to a reduced controlled-substance charge (2013 case); he was sentenced to consecutive terms.
- Patterson filed a pro se postconviction petition arguing the AHC statute (720 ILCS 5/24-1.7) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him because it requires being "convicted a total of 2 or more times" and gives no guidance when two predicate convictions are entered simultaneously.
- The circuit court dismissed the petition at the first stage as frivolous and patently without merit; Patterson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether guilty plea waived vagueness challenge to statute | State: guilty pleas waive nonjurisdictional constitutional claims | Patterson: Class v. United States allows statutory-constitutionality challenges despite guilty plea | Court: Plea did not bar this challenge under Class; appeal allowed |
| Whether AHC statute is unconstitutionally vague (notice) | State: statutory language plainly requires two convictions; applies here | Patterson: "two times" requires separate entries/sequential convictions; simultaneous entries fail to give fair notice | Court: "convicted a total of 2 or more times" unambiguously covers separate offenses even if entered same day; no notice problem |
| Whether AHC statute is unconstitutionally vague (arbitrary enforcement) | State: application here not arbitrary—two separate offenses and incidents were involved | Patterson: statute enables prosecutorial splitting of charges to manufacture recidivist status | Court: No arguable arbitrary-enforcement claim; facts show separate incidents and lawful application |
| Whether petition met first-stage standard under Post-Conviction Hearing Act | State: petition frivolous/patently without merit | Patterson: pleaded "gist" of a constitutional claim that should advance to stage two | Court: Petition lacked arguable basis in law or fact; summary dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Class v. United States, 583 U.S. (2018) (guilty plea does not categorically bar challenge to constitutionality of statute of conviction)
- People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1 (2009) (first-stage dismissal permissible only when petition has no arguable basis in law or fact)
- People v. Morris, 236 Ill. 2d 345 (2010) (de novo review of first-stage postconviction dismissal)
- People v. Einoder, 209 Ill. 2d 443 (2004) (as-applied vagueness challenge focuses on statute’s application to the defendant’s conduct)
- People v. Woodard, 175 Ill. 2d 435 (1997) (court may not read conditions into clear statutory language not expressed by legislature)