People v. Smith
2017 IL App (1st) 122370-B
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 3, 2009, plainclothes officers stopped a vehicle; officers observed defendant Jamal Smith behaving as if placing something under the front passenger seat and later luggage in the backseat.
- Sergeant Rochowicz found a semiautomatic handgun under the front passenger seat and a .38 revolver behind the driver’s seat; Smith was Mirandized and told officers the guns were his and he was taking them to his aunt’s house.
- Forensic examiners recovered no usable fingerprints from the weapons. Smith stipulated he had a prior qualifying felony conviction (AUUW).
- Jury convicted Smith of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon (UUWF) for the semiautomatic and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon by a felon (AUUW) for the revolver; trial court merged the AUUW into UUWF and sentenced Smith to five years’ imprisonment.
- On appeal Smith argued (1) trial court improperly curtailed cross-examination of Officer Moore, (2) People v. Aguilar invalidated the predicate prior felony making his UUWF conviction void, and (3) if UUWF stands, his offense classification should be reduced from Class 2 to Class 3; he also sought vacation of his AUUW conviction in light of Burns.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Smith's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court curtailed cross-examination of Officer Moore about police report details | Court properly excluded police reports as evidence; any limitation was harmless because other testimony supported statement | Exclusion prevented impeachment by omission and prejudiced defense | Forfeited by failure to object; even if error, harmless because multiple officers testified to the statement |
| Whether Aguilar (invalidating certain AUUW) voids prior AUUW so it cannot serve as predicate for UUWF | A prior conviction not vacated remains a valid predicate; UUWF requires proof of felon status at time of possession | Aguilar rendered the prior AUUW void ab initio, so it cannot support UUWF conviction | Followed People v. McFadden: affirmed UUWF — prior AUUW conviction (not vacated) properly served as predicate |
| Whether prior invalid conviction can be used to enhance UUWF from Class 3 to Class 2 | UUWF’s statutory text makes prior conviction an element; sentencing as Class 2 was proper where prior conviction stood | Cited Lewis and related cases to argue invalid prior conviction cannot be used to enhance punishment | Rejected Smith’s enhancement argument; Lewis and Illinois precedent permit using an existing conviction to establish felon status and corresponding sentencing class |
| Whether Smith’s AUUW conviction should be vacated given Burns and Aguilar | State did not oppose vacatur under Burns | The AUUW provision is facially unconstitutional and unenforceable against anyone | Vacated Smith’s AUUW conviction and sentence (statute is facially unconstitutional per Burns) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980) (federal felon-in-possession analysis: prior conviction may serve as predicate unless vacated)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (states may not enforce convictions or penalties that the Constitution bars)
- Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109 (1967) (invalid prior conviction undermines reliability of subsequent punishment when relied upon)
- Tucker v. United States, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) (invalid prior conviction may render subsequent sentence unconstitutional when dependent on prior)
- People v. Artis, 232 Ill. 2d 156 (2009) (appellate courts bound to follow Illinois Supreme Court precedent)
- People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176 (1988) (preservation rule: objection and posttrial motion required to preserve issues for appeal)
- People v. Nicholas, 218 Ill. 2d 104 (2005) (prosecutor has wide latitude in closing; may argue reasonable inferences from evidence)
- People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32 (2009) (plain-error and review framework for forfeited issues)