People v. Powell
2012 IL App (1st) 102363
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Powell was convicted at a bench trial of unlawful use of a weapon (UUW) by a felon after having a prior burglary conviction.
- Burglary is a forcible felony, which is alleged to elevate UUW by a felon from a misdemeanor to a felony.
- The information charged Powell with UUW by a felon under 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) due to a prior burglary conviction.
- The sentencing court treated the offense as a Class 2 felony and imposed 4½ years in prison.
- Powell argues this relied on the same prior conviction to both upgrade the offense and to enhance punishment, i.e., a double enhancement, which would be improper.
- The court upheld the sentence, concluding the upgrade and sentencing are authorized by the statute and not a double enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether using the prior burglary as both element and sentence enhancer constitutes double enhancement | Powell argues it is impermissible | State contends no double enhancement occurred | No double enhancement; sentence within the statutory Class 2 range. |
| Whether the statutory upgrade to Class 2 and its sentencing range reflect legislative intent to harshen penalties for forcible felons | Not explicitly stated here | Legislature intended to elevate penalties for forcible felons | Yes, statute clearly expresses intent to elevate class and punishment. |
| Whether the sentence is properly within the mandated range after upgrade | (not explicitly stated) | Sentence within range is appropriate | Yes, the 4½-year term falls within the 3–14 year Class 2 range. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Phelps, 211 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2004) (recognizes dual-use prohibition on elements and enhancements)
- People v. Rissley, 165 Ill. 2d 364 (Ill. 1995) (statutory intent controls when enhancing penalties)
- People v. Kelly, 347 Ill. App. 3d 163 (Ill. App. 2004) (set forth interpretation of 24-1.1(e) силу)
- People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368 (Ill. 2004) (plain-error framework for sentencing issues)
- People v. Arna, 168 Ill. 2d 107 (Ill. 1995) (void sentences may be corrected on review)
- People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539 (Ill. 2010) (forfeiture and plain-error considerations in sentencing)
- People v. Staple, 402 Ill. App. 3d 1098 (Ill. App. 2010) (addressed sentencing error review)
- People v. Chaney, 379 Ill. App. 3d 524 (Ill. App. 2008) (double enhancement concerns where Class X penalties involved)
- People v. Owens, 377 Ill. App. 3d 302 (Ill. App. 2007) (double enhancement when same felony used for class and punishment)