People v. Pryor, 2013 IL App (1st) 121792

Pryor was convicted of unlawful use or possession of a weapon by a felon (UUW by felon) and sentenced to five years.
Counts charged did not specify whether the UUW by felon was Class 2 or Class 3 and did not state the prosecutor’s intention to seek an enhanced sentence.
Stipulation at trial noted Pryor had a prior felony conviction but did not describe the prior offense; the certified copy was not in the record.
Presentence report indicated the prior conviction was a violation of 720 ILCS 5/24-1, not 24-1.1, which affects class and range.
The State later sought an enhanced Class 2 sentence based on Pryor’s prior conviction; the court agreed, citing 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(e).
The trial court sentenced Pryor to five years, adopting the Class 2 range (3–14 years) rather than the Class 3 range (2–10 years).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the charging instrument satisfy 111-3(c) notice requirements for enhancement?	Pryor	Pryor	Remand for resentencing as Class 3 felony.
Was there an impermissible double enhancement under the same prior conviction?	Pryor	Pryor	No reversible double enhancement; issue addressed but remand maintained.

People v. Easley, 2012 IL App (1st) 110023 (Illinois Appellate Court (1st Dist. 2012)) (notice required for enhancement under 111-3(c) in UUW by felon cases)
People v. Whalum, 2012 IL App (1st) 110959 (Illinois Appellate Court (1st Dist. 2012)) (same issue; requires notice for enhancement)
People v. Nowells, 2013 IL App (1st) 113209 (Illinois Appellate Court (1st Dist. 2013)) (split authority on 111-3(c) applicability to UUW by felon)
People v. Walker, 211 Ill. 2d 317 (Ill. 2004) (prior felony is an element of UUW by felon; Old Chief framework)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (prior-conviction rule to minimize prejudice in trials)
People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (Ill. 2007) (plain-error and sentencing impact in failure to preserve notice)