People v. Williams
2015 IL 117470
Ill.2015Background
- In April 2013 Williams was arrested in Chicago for possessing a firearm in a vehicle/public street while not possessing a currently valid FOID card.\
- He was charged with several counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) under 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6, including counts that relied on lack of a FOID card (subsection (a)(3)(C)).\
- After People v. Aguilar, the State nol-prossed AUUW counts based on other subsections, leaving the FOID-based AUUW counts.\
- Williams moved to declare the AUUW sentencing penalties unconstitutional under the Illinois proportionate penalties clause, arguing AUUW (Class 4 felony) and the FOID Card Act violation (Class A misdemeanor) have identical elements.\
- The Cook County circuit court agreed, found the AUUW FOID-based provisions unconstitutional under the identical-elements test, and dismissed the AUUW charges. The State appealed directly to the Illinois Supreme Court.\
- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, holding AUUW’s location element (outside the home / on public way) makes its elements different from the FOID Card Act and therefore there is no proportionate-penalties violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AUUW (based on lack of FOID) and the FOID Card Act have identical elements for proportionality analysis | State: Elements differ because AUUW includes a location element (outside home / public way) absent in FOID Act | Williams: Statutes are substantively the same; both criminalize possession without a FOID card, so elements are identical and penalties must match | Held: Not identical — AUUW requires an additional location element; no identical-elements proportionate-penalties violation |
| Whether Aguilar/Severed AUUW subsections render (a)(3)(C) unconstitutional or eliminate the location distinction | State: Mosley confirms (a)(3)(C) is severable and constitutional; Aguilar did not invalidate location-based elements | Williams: Relied on Aguilar/Moore to argue no constitutional difference between home and outside, aiming to collapse distinction | Held: Aguilar does not negate the location element; Mosley affirms (a)(3)(C) is severable and enforceable |
| Whether the proportionate-penalties claim can be applied "as-applied" to Williams rather than facially | Williams: Asserted unconstitutionality as applied to him | State: Identical-elements test is objective and not an as-applied inquiry | Held: Proportionate penalty identical-elements test is objective; not dependent on defendant-specific application |
| Remedy if statutes are identical | Williams: Dismiss AUUW counts | State: Reinstate charges if statutes not identical | Held: Because statutes are not identical, circuit court judgment reversing AUUW conviction was reversed and charges must be reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Christy, 139 Ill.2d 172 (1990) (articulates identical-elements test under proportionate penalties clause)
- People v. Lewis, 175 Ill.2d 412 (1996) (reaffirms identical-elements analysis)
- People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill.2d 481 (2005) (explains identical-elements test is objective and logic-based)
- People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 (2013) (addressed second amendment scope and struck specific AUUW subsection as facially unconstitutional)
- People v. Clemons, 2012 IL 107821 (2012) (discusses application of identical-elements/proportionate penalties principles)
- People v. Mosley, 2015 IL 115872 (2015) (held subsection (a)(3)(C) of AUUW severable and constitutional when combined with location elements)