Schlosser v. State
965 N.E.2d 430
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff’s FOID card denial by ISP was based on a prior conviction for indecent solicitation of a child (Class 2 felony).
- Plaintiff petitioned for hearing in Will County after denial; trial court denied relief, deeming the conviction a forcible felony.
- Plaintiff testified to the 2002 plea and circumstances involving a 14-year-old, with online chats and an attempt to meet the teen.
- Witnesses described plaintiff as non-dangerous; the State offered no evidence at the hearing.
- Trial court held indecent solicitation of a child falls within the forcible felony definition under section 2-8 and denied relief; plaintiff appealed.
- Statutory framework: FOID denial appeals allow circuit court review when denial is based on a forcible felony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does indecent solicitation of a child qualify as a forcible felony? | Schlossser argues not a forcible felony. | State argues it involves threat or use of force. | Yes, it qualifies as a forcible felony. |
| Was the circuit court proper forum for review and did it have jurisdiction? | Petition to review in circuit court proper when denial is based on forcible felony. | State contends route was correct as per statute. | Circuit court properly had jurisdiction; appeal timely and proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Belk, 203 Ill.2d 187 (Ill. 2003) (defines forcible felony by residual category and requires analysis of force or threat in context of the crime)
- Clay v. Kuhl, 189 Ill.2d 603 (Ill. 2000) (age of consent and presumed harm in sexual abuse of a minor)
- Softcheck v. Imesch, 367 Ill.App.3d 148 (Ill. App. 2006) (age-based criminal statutes and presumption of harm in sexual offenses)
- In re John C.M., 382 Ill.App.3d 553 (Ill. App. 2008) (jurisdictional review of FOID denial appeal)
- In re Marriage of Chrobak, 349 Ill.App.3d 894 (Ill. App. 2004) (statutory interpretation of appellate pathways)