People v. Hatch

1

2022 IL App (2d) 210590-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARAMIS HATCH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2-21-0590

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Second District

October 31, 2022

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane County, No. 15-CF-599 Honorable John Barsanti, Judge, Presiding.

JUSTICE BIRKETT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hutchinson and Hudson concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

BIRKETT JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's petition for a certificate of innocence where he failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was innocent of the charged offenses.

¶ 2 Defendant, Aramis Hatch, appeals the order of the circuit court of Kane County denying his petition for a certificate of innocence under section 2-702 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-702 (West 2020)). We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The factual background is more fully set forth in this court's prior opinion in People v. Hatch 2020 IL App (2d) 170932-U (unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23) (Hatch I), which was defendant's direct appeal from his conviction. We include only those facts that are pertinent to the resolution of the instant appeal.

¶ 5 On August 18, 2015, defendant was charged by indictment with two counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) for possessing a concealed firearm while not on his land or in his home (or that of another person as an invitee) without a valid concealed carry license (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1) (a)(3)(A-5) (West 2014)) or a valid Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(C) (West 2014)). The charges stemmed from an incident that occurred on April 11, 2015. On that date, police were dispatched to an address in Elgin in response to a 911 call regarding a "potential stolen vehicle." Once there, they discovered a vehicle with two passengers inside parked on the road, in front of a stop sign. Defendant, who was seated in the front passenger seat, was observed with a pistol protruding from the pocket of his jacket. Because defendant was seated, the pockets of his jacket were near his lap, and so "the pistol was sitting right on his lap." Police secured defendant's firearm, removed seven rounds of ammunition from it, and arrested him. Defendant did not resist the officers and he fully complied with their commands. At the time of the arrest, the officers did not know whether defendant had a valid FOID card or if he possessed the firearm legally. Neither a FOID card nor a license under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act (430 ILCS 66/1 et seq. (West 2014)) was recovered from defendant.

¶ 6 Based on People v. Wiggins, 2016 IL App (1st) 153163, the circuit court granted the State's motion in limine and prohibited defendant from offering any evidence or argument that he was a resident of the state of Georgia or that he was permitted to possess a firearm in that state without a license. The State expressly anticipated that defendant would argue that he was permitted to carry a firearm in Georgia without a license such that he fit the exemption in the Firearm Owner's Identification Card Act (FOID Card Act) applicable to" [n] onresidents who are currently licensed or registered to possess a firearm in their resident state." 430 ILCS 65/2(b) (10) (West 2014). After a bench trial, defendant was found guilty of both offenses and sentenced to 180 days in jail and 24 months' probation.

¶ 7 Defendant filed a direct appeal raising three arguments: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to quash his arrest and suppress evidence because the officers lacked probable cause to believe his possession of the firearm was illegal at the time of arrest; (2) he was either exempt from the FOID Card Act and the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, or the statutes were unconstitutional as applied to him; and, (3) in the alternative, one of his convictions should be vacated under the one-act, one-crime doctrine. We agreed with defendant's first argument and reversed his convictions outright on June 12, 2020. Hatch I, 2020 IL App (2d) 170932-U, ¶ 2. In so holding, we reasoned that a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence would have succeeded had defendant's counsel filed one because the arresting officers testified that they had no knowledge regarding whether defendant legally possessed the firearm at the time of the arrest, and the applicable case law was clear that possession of a firearm outside of the home is not, in and of itself, a crime. Id. ¶¶ 27-40. See also People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116, ¶¶ 20-22 (striking down as unconstitutional a section of the AUUW statute that categorically banned the possession of an operable firearm outside the home). As the result of this determination, it was unnecessary to reach the merits of defendant's remaining arguments.

¶ 8 On May 14, 2021, defendant filed a petition for a certificate of innocence under section 2-702 of the Code. He highlighted that he was convicted of two counts of AUUW, that he fully served his sentence, that we reversed his conviction outright, and that the circuit court subsequently entered an order dismissing his charges. As the factual basis for the petition, defendant contended that he was a resident of the state of Georgia at the time of his arrest, where "he [was] allowed to possess a firearm without a license under Georgia law such that Georgia permitted and licensed him to possess a firearm." According to defendant, he therefore fell into the exception in the FOID Card Act applicable to" [n] onresidents who are currently licensed or registered to possess a firearm in their resident state." See 430 ILCS 65/2(b)(10) (West 2020). Concerning the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, defendant maintained that he fell into an exception that is applicable to a nonresident who is "transporting a concealed firearm within his or her vehicle" and, among other requirements, "is eligible to carry a firearm in public under the laws of his or her state or territory of residence, as evidenced by the possession of a concealed carry license or permit issued by his or her state of residence, if applicable." See 430 ILCS 66/40(e) (West 2020). Accordingly, defendant contended he was not required to obtain either a FOID card or a concealed carry license before possessing a firearm in Illinois and was innocent of the charged offenses. Defendant did not cite any Georgia authority in support of his assertion that he was allowed to possess a firearm without a license under Georgia law.

¶ 9 On May 20, 2021, the State moved to deny defendant's petition, arguing that he failed to establish his innocence of the offenses charged in the indictment. It stressed that the reversal of his convictions was based, not on the proposition that defendant lawfully possessed the firearm on the date of the offense, but rather, on defendant's receipt of ineffective assistance of counsel. In other words, it asserted that the reversal of defendant's convictions did not mean that he lawfully possessed the firearm at the time of his arrest. The State also argued that defendant provided insufficient detail to establish his innocence of the offenses, including any evidence that he was a resident of Georgia or that he was allowed to possess a firearm under Georgia law. Arguendo, even if defendant was a resident of Georgia and was allowed to possess a firearm there, the State emphasized that the appellate court rejected the identical argument in Wiggins, where it held that the exception to the FOID Card Act for nonresidents currently licensed or registered to possess a firearm in their resident state applied only "to nonresidents who have complied with a required governmental process and received an official license from their home state to possess a firearm." Wiggins, 2016 IL App (1st) 153163, ¶ 61.

¶ 10 On May 24, 2021, defendant filed a response to the State's motion and asserted that, under the "innocence" prong in section 2-702(g)(3), he needed only to establish that he was found "not guilty," and that the State's argument impermissibly argued in favor of "a higher standard of 'innocence of the charges.'" He contended that, "[a]t the very least, defendant [was] *** 'not guilty' which meets the criteria for a Certificate of Innocence." Regarding the State's reliance on Wiggins, defendant contended that it was a "red herring" whose decision was flawed. The State filed a reply on June 16, 2021, disputing defendant's claim that he needed only to demonstrate that he was "not guilty" and maintained that defendant failed to establish that he possessed the firearm legally.

¶ 11 After a hearing on September 17, 2021, the circuit court entered a written order denying the petition, reasoning that defendant failed to satisfy the third prong of section 2-702(g), namely, that he was innocent of the charged offenses. It observed that, although section 2(b) (10) of the FOID Card Act exempts "nonresidents who are currently licensed or registered to possess a firearm in their resident state," Wiggins held that the exception is applicable only to nonresidents who have "complied with a required governmental process and received an official license from their home state to possess a firearm," as opposed to situations in which the resident state authorizes gun possession without any formal approval or licensure requirements. See Wiggins, 2016 IL App (1st) 153163 ¶ 43. The court further noted that, notwithstanding the officers' failure to investigate whether defendant possessed the firearm legally, he was not...