THE
Docket No. 125483
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
September 24, 2020
2020 IL 125483
JUSTICE THEIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Chief Justice Anne M. Burke and Justices Kilbride, Garman, Karmeier, Neville, and Michael J. Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶ 1 The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit certified
BACKGROUND
¶ 2
¶ 3 Jeremy Glispie has four prior convictions for residential burglary in Illinois, hаving pled guilty to knowingly and without authority entering into other people‘s dwelling places to commit thefts. In January 2018, the government charged him with possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of
¶ 4 The Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (Act) (
¶ 5 A defendant‘s conviction for burglary under state law qualifies as a violent felony under the Act when the elements of the state burglary statute are the same as, or narrower, than the elements of generic burglary. See Descamps, 570 U.S. at 257. For instance, the Court concluded that, when a burglary statute “eliminat[ed] the requirement that the entry be unlawful,” the statute was broader than generic burglary. Taylor, 495 U.S. at 599; see also Descamps, 570 U.S. at 261 (a state statute that ” ‘defines “burglary” so broadly аs to include shoplifting’ ” was broader than generic burglary (quoting Taylor, 495 U.S. at 591)).
¶ 6 In this case, based on Seventh Circuit precedent, the district court determined that Illinois‘s residential burglary statute was no broader than generic burglary. Accordingly, it ruled that Glispie‘s prior convictions qualified as violent felоnies under the Act. That ruling increased his sentencing range from a maximum of 10 years in prison to a minimum of 15 years in prison (and a maximum of life). The district court sentenced Glispie to 15 years’ imprisonment.
¶ 7 On appeal, Glispie argued that the limited authority doctrine applied to the residential burglary statute, rendering it broader than generic burglary. Thus, he contended, his prior convictions did not qualify for purposes of the Act. The Seventh Circuit agreed with Glispie that, if the limited authority doctrine applied to the residential burglary statute, then his convictions
ANALYSIS
¶ 8
¶ 9 At issue is whether the limited authority doctrine applies to the residential burglary statute.2 To resolve this issue, we must examine the statutory language; accordingly, it presents a quеstion of law that we review de novo. In re Christopher K., 217 Ill. 2d 348, 364 (2005). “When construing a statute, this court‘s primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature.” Lakewood Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Department of Public Health, 2019 IL 124019, ¶ 17. The plain language of the statute is the best indicator of legislative intent. La Salle Bank National Ass‘n v. Cypress Creek 1, LP, 242 Ill. 2d 231, 237 (2011).
¶ 10 Yet “a court will not read language in isolation; it will cоnsider it in the context of the entire statute.” Carmichael v. Laborers’ & Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, 2018 IL 122793, ¶ 35. In addition to the statutory language, it is proper to consider the reason for the law, the problem sought to be remedied, the goals to be achieved, and the consequences of construing the statute one way or anоther. Id. Further, when the legislature chooses not to amend a statute after judicial construction, we presume that it has acquiesced in this court‘s construction of the statute and declaration of legislative intent. People v. Johnson, 2019 IL 123318, ¶ 14. “We assume not only that the General Assembly acts with full knowledge of previous judicial decisions, but also that its silence on this issue in the face of decisions consistent with those previous decisions indicates its acquiescence to them.” In re Marriage of Mathis, 2012 IL 113496, ¶ 25.
¶ 11 This court first applied the limited authority doctrine to Illinois‘s burglary statute in People v. Weaver, 41 Ill. 2d 434 (1968). In Weaver, the defendant was convicted of burglary after he walked into an open laundromat, pried open a vending machine, and removed money from it. Id. at 435-36. On appeal, the defendant argued that, because the laundromat was open to the public at the time he was apprehended, his presence there was as consistent with his innocence as with his guilt of criminal intent at the time of his entry. Id. at 438.
¶ 12 This court observed that “a common-law breaking [was] no longer an essential element of the crime of burglary.” Id. We also noted that the text of the burglary statute required an entry that wаs both without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft. Id. at 439; see
¶ 13 Following Weaver, courts have consistently applied the limited authority doctrine to burglary by entry of business buildings. For instance, in People v. Blair, 52 Ill. 2d 371, 374 (1972), we upheld the defеndants’ convictions for burglary when they entered a car wash “with admitted intent to commit a theft.” Most recently, in Johnson, 2019 IL 123318, we reaffirmed the limited authority doctrine‘s applicability to retail establishments. We observed that, if the “defendant had the intent to commit a theft when he entered the Walmart, then, under Weaver, it must necessarily follow that his entry was ‘without authority’ within the meaning of section 19-1(a) of the burglary statute.” Id. ¶ 19; see also People v. Gharrett, 2016 IL App (4th) 140315, ¶¶ 53-55 (citing Weaver in affirming the defendant‘s burglary conviction for entering a private office within a public facility with the intent to commit theft); People ex rel. McLain v. Housewright, 9 Ill. App. 3d 803, 806 (1973) (“[I]t would be contrary to reason and ordinary human understаnding to deduce that the business invitation extended by the owners of the supermarket to the public generally would include authority to enter for an unlawful purpose.“); but see People v. Bradford, 2016 IL 118674, ¶ 25 (declining to extend Weaver‘s analysis to burglary by remaining).
¶ 14 We have also applied the limited authority doctrine to the home invasion statute. In part, that statute provides that “[a] person who is not a peace officer acting in the line of duty commits home invasion when without authority he or she knowingly enters the dwelling place of another when he or she knows or has reason to know that one or more persons is presеnt” and “[u]ses force or threatens the imminent use of force upon any person or persons within the dwelling place.”
¶ 15 Shortly thereafter, we reiterated that “the limited-authority doctrine is applicable to private residences.” People v. Bush, 157 Ill. 2d 248, 253 (1993). We reasoned that, had the would-be thief informed the occupant of his or her criminal intentions, the thief would not have been allowed to enter the residence. Id. at 253-54. Accordingly, this court ruled that “[n]o individual who is granted access to a dwelling can be said to be an authorized entrant if he intends to commit criminal acts therein.” Id. at 253; see also People v. Hudson, 113 Ill. App. 3d 1041, 1045 (1983) (holding that “without authority” has the same meaning under both the burglary and home invasion statutes).
¶ 17 The General Assembly has amended the residential burglary statute multiple times over the years, yet it has retained the phrase “without authority.” The current version provides, in part: “A person commits residential burglary when he or she knowingly and without authority enters *** the dwelling place of another, or any part thereof, with the intent to commit therein a felony or theft.”
¶ 18 The rationale behind the limited authority doctrine applies firmly to residential burglary by entry. As we observed in Bush, 157 Ill. 2d at 253-54, no homeowner would authorize a person to enter her home if she knew that he intended to commit crimes. See also People v. Fisher, 83 Ill. App. 3d 619, 623 (1980) (applying the limited authority doctrine to burglary of an apartment after finding the logic of Weaver “equally applicablе to the matter before us“). That observation is as true of residential burglary as it is of home invasion. Indeed, courts in Illinois have applied the limited authority doctrine to the residential burglary statute for more than 30 years. See, e.g., People v. Walker, 191 Ill. App. 3d 382, 387 (1989) (upholding a conviction for residential burglary where the evidence established that the assailants entered with the intent to commit a robbery, and thus, their entry was unauthorized); see also Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 11.53A (approved Dec. 8, 2011) (titled “Unauthorized Entry—Limited Authority Doctrine—Home Invasion And Residential Burglary“) (“The defendant‘s entry into a dwelling of another is ‘without authority’ if, at the time of entry into the dwelling, the defendant has an intent to commit a criminal act within the dwelling regardless of whether the defendant was initially invited into or received consent to enter the dwelling.“).
¶ 19 The Government raises several arguments against applying the limited authority doctrine to the residential burglary statute. Noting that burglary at common law required a breaking, the Government urges this court to construe the residential burglary statute based on the common-law understanding of the offense.
¶ 20 The Government further argues that applying the limited authority doctrine to the residential burglary statute would lead to absurd results. According to the Government, if the doctrine applies to residential burglary, then cotenants may be convicted of burglarizing their own homes. However, residential burglary occurs when a persоn who lacks authority enters the ”dwelling place of another” with the intent to commit therein a felony or theft. (Emphasis added.)
¶ 21 Decades after the residential burglary statute was enacted, the General Assembly added the following provision:
“A person commits residential burglary who falsely represents himself or herself, including but not limited to falsely representing himself or herself to be a representative of any unit of government or a construction, telecommunications, or utility company, for the purpose of gaining entry to the dwelling place of another, with the intent to commit therein a felony or theft or to facilitate the commission therein of a felony or thеft by another.” Pub. Act 96-1113, § 5 (eff. Jan. 1, 2011).
According to the Government, the General Assembly would have had no reason to add subsection (a-5) if the limited authority doctrine applies to the residential burglary statute because “the unauthorized-entry requirement under subsection (a) could be met merely by a finding of criminal intent at the time of entry.” Yet, as the Government itself recognizes, under subsection (a-5) a person also commits residential burglary when she falsely represents herself to help someone else enter the owner‘s home to commit a felony or theft.
¶ 22 In sum, we hold that the limited authority doctrine applies to residential burglary by entry. The question of whether the doctrine applies to residential burglary by remaining is not before us, and thus, we decline to answer it.
CONCLUSION
¶ 23
¶ 24 For these reasons, we answer the certified question in the affirmative, holding that the limited authority doctrine applies to residential burglary by entry.
¶ 25 Certified question answered.