People v. Jackson

1

2024 IL App (1st) 221095-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTWAN JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-22-1095

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division

March 1, 2024

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

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 20 CR 5418 Honorable Thomas J. Hennelly, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE NAVARRO delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Mitchell and Justice Mikva concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

NAVARRO, JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: Although we reverse defendant's two convictions for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon due to insufficient evidence, we affirm his conviction for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon over his claim that the unlawful use of a weapon by a felon statute is unconstitutional, as applied to him, and find his nine-year sentence for the offense not excessive.

¶ 2 Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of one count of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and two counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon based on lacking a currently valid concealed carry license and currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification card, respectively. The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to nine years' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends that (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict him of both aggravated unlawful use of a weapon offenses; (2) all three convictions are unconstitutional under the second amendment (U.S. Const., amend. II); and (3) his sentence is excessive. We agree that there was insufficient evidence to convict defendant of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and reverse those convictions. We, however, affirm his remaining conviction for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and nine-year sentence.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 A grand jury indicted defendant on three counts, all based on his possession of a firearm. Count 1 charged defendant with unlawful use of a weapon by a felon for allegedly possessing the firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony. Count 2 charged defendant with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon for, inter alia, allegedly possessing the firearm without having been issued a currently valid concealed carry license. Lastly, Count 3 charged defendant with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon for inter alia, allegedly possessing the firearm without having been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card.

¶ 5 The case proceeded to a bench trial, where the State's evidence showed that, in the evening of April 3, 2020, Chicago police officers responded to a report of a domestic disturbance at an apartment complex. In a courtyard, an officer observed defendant, who appeared to have a weapon. Upon encountering the police, defendant ran. During a chase of defendant, an officer observed him discard a firearm. The officers eventually apprehended defendant and recovered the firearm, which was loaded, had a laser attachment and an extended magazine. At the conclusion of the State's case, it entered into evidence a certified copy of conviction showing that defendant had previously pled guilty to, and was convicted of, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. The defense did not present any evidence. Thereafter, the trial court found him guilty on all three counts.

¶ 6 After defendant filed an unsuccessful motion for new trial, the case proceeded to a sentencing hearing. In aggravation, the State highlighted defendant's prior conviction and noted that the trial court found him guilty of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. Given defendant's background, the State asserted that his presumptive minimum sentence was seven years' imprisonment. In mitigation, defendant noted that the relevant sentencing statute, section 5-4.5110 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Code) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-110 (West 2020)), which prescribed sentences for convictions of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon under certain circumstances when defendants had qualifying criminal backgrounds-would be repealed on January 1, 2023. Defendant further noted that the sentencing statute allowed the trial court to depart from the presumptive minimum of seven years' imprisonment based on various factors, including the age, immaturity or limited mental capacity of the defendant at the time of the commission of the qualifying predicate offense as well as whether the departure was in the best interest of the defendant's rehabilitation. Given that defendant was 19 years old when he committed his predicate offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, he had graduated from high school, he had attended community college and he had six years of steady employment prior to the instant case, he argued that there was sufficient justification for the court to depart from the presumptive minimum of seven years' imprisonment. In turn, defendant requested a sentence of three years' imprisonment.

¶ 7 Following the parties' argument, the trial court did not believe defendant's age at the time of the predicate offense or the effect on his rehabilitation warranted a departure from the presumptive minimum of seven years' imprisonment. Although the court noted it was "commendable" that defendant had a steady history of employment, it was troubled by defendant continuing to carry a firearm despite a prior firearms-r elated conviction. In addition, the court noted that defendant ran from the police and the evidence of his guilt was "overwhelming." Ultimately, the court sentenced defendant to nine years' imprisonment. Although the court did not distinguish between defendant's three convictions, the mittimus reflects that he received nine years' imprisonment on all three of his convictions, without a notation if those sentences were to be served concurrently or consecutively. Defendant moved the court to reconsider the sentence, but it denied his motion.

¶ 8 This appeal followed.

¶ 9 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 10 A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶ 11 Defendant first contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove his guilt for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon based on him lacking a currently valid concealed carry license (Count 2) or currently valid FOID card (Count 3). Defendant argues that, because the State failed to present any evidence showing he lacked either a currently valid concealed carry license or currently valid FOID card, the State failed to prove an essential element on each count.

¶ 12 Although the State does not dispute that it failed to present this evidence, it posits that defendant's sufficiency-of-the-evidence contention is moot because of a one-act, one-crime doctrine violation. Under the one-act one-crime doctrine "a criminal defendant may not be convicted of multiple offenses when those offenses are all based on precisely the same physical act." People v. Coats, 2018 IL 121926, ¶ 11. The State asserts that, under the doctrine, because all three of defendant's convictions were based on the same physical act of possessing the same firearm, defendant's two convictions for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon should be vacated, as the less serious offenses, and his unlawful use of a weapon by a felon conviction should stand, as the most serious offense. See People v. Grant, 2017 IL App (1st) 142956, ¶ 33 (where multiple firearms-related offenses were based on the same physical act of "possession of the same loaded firearm," the most serious offense must stand and the less serious offense must be vacated). Therefore, according to the State, any contention about the sufficiency of the evidence on his convictions for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon is moot because they would be vacated under the one-act, one-crime doctrine. While the State's argument is, in theory, correct, it is also true that, if we find insufficient evidence to sustain defendant's aggravated unlawful use of a weapon convictions, any argument about the one-act, one-crime doctrine, which defendant raises in the alternative in his brief, becomes moot. In other words, addressing either argument could result in the other becoming moot. Given this, we address defendant's sufficiency of the evidence contention, which he raises first.

¶ 13 When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence against him, we must determine whether, when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 64. The reviewing court does not retry the defendant, and thus, we do not substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact on issues affecting the weight of the evidence. Id. We will not reverse a defendant's convictions "unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory that it creates a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt." Id.

¶ 14 The trial court found defendant guilty of two counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, one for lacking a currently valid concealed carry license (Count 2) and one for lacking a currently valid FOID card (Count 3). To prove defendant guilty on Count 2, the State had to prove inter alia, that defendant possessed a firearm and he did so without having been issued a currently valid concealed carry license. 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A-5) (West 2020). Similarly, to prove defendant guilty on Count 3, the State had to prove, inter alia, that defendant possessed a firearm and he did so without having been issued a currently valid FOID card. 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(C) (West 2020). Although there was no evidence presented that defendant produced either a...