Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In 2011, defendant was convicted under the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute (AUUW) (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A)) and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. That statute was found to be unconstitutional in 2013 (Aguilar case). The appellate court affirmed defendant’s conviction, finding that, in Aguilar, the Illinois Supreme Court limited its finding of unconstitutionality to the “Class 4 form” of the offense and that the “Class 2 form,” applicable to felons, like defendant, was constitutional and enforceable. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. A “Class 2 form” of AUUW does not exist. There is only one offense of AUUW based on section 24-1.6(a)(1)(a)(3)(A) and a prior felony conviction is not an element of that offense. A prior felony conviction is a sentencing factor which elevates the offense from a Class 4 felony to a Class 2 felony. On its face, the provision constitutes a flat ban on carrying ready-to-use guns outside the home and amounts to a wholesale ban on the exercise of a personal right that is specifically guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, as construed by the Supreme Court. Because the prohibition is not limited to a particular subset of persons, such as felons, the statute, as written, is unconstitutional on its face. View "People v. Burns" on Justia Law

The issue before the Illinois Supreme Court in this case was a circuit court’s order declaring certain sections of the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) statute as unconstitutional. The circuit court found that sections 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(C) and (a)(2), (a)(3)(C) of the AUUW statute, which were based on defendant’s lack of a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card (FOID card), violated the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution. The court determined that the offense of AUUW based on the lack of a FOID card was identical to a violation of the FOID Card Act, and since the penalties for violating the two statutes were different, the court declared the AUUW statute unconstitutional and dismissed the charges against defendant. The Supreme Court concluded that the offense of AUUW based on the lack of a FOID card and a violation of the FOID Card Act do not have identical elements and thus, there can be no proportionate penalty violation. The circuit court’s judgment was reversed and the case remanded for reinstatement of the charges against defendant. View "Illinois v. Williams" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this appeal was whether the “void sentence rule,” should be abandoned. Defendant Steven Castleberry was convicted on two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault based on separate acts of oral and vaginal contact with the victim. At sentencing, the State argued that defendant was subject to a mandatory 15-year sentencing enhancement on each of the two counts because the crimes had been committed by defendant while he was armed with a firearm. When added to the mandatory minimum term of 6 years’ imprisonment for each offense, this meant, according to the State, that defendant was subject to a mandatory minimum term of 21 years’ imprisonment on each count. The circuit court disagreed with the State regarding the application of the 15-year enhancement, concluding that the legislature had intended the enhancement to be applied only once under the circumstances presented. The circuit court sentenced defendant to a 9-year term of imprisonment on each count, adding the 15-year enhancement to only one of the counts. The two sentences were ordered to run consecutively, for a total term of 33 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, defendant did not challenge the appellate court’s affirmance of his convictions. Instead, defendant argued that the appellate court erred when it held that the sentence imposed without the statutory enhancement was void. Defendant contended that the rule relied upon by the appellate court (that a sentence which does not conform to statutory requirements was void) was no longer valid in light of recent Illinois Supreme Court decisions and, thus, could not provide a basis for the appellate court to reverse the circuit court’s sentencing order. After review, the Court concluded that its recent decisions indeed undermined the rationale behind the rule to the point that the rule could no longer be considered valid. The Court therefore abolished the rule. View "Illinois v. Castleberry" on Justia Law

In this case, defendant Jorge Guzman argued that the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in “Illinois v. Delvillar,” (235 Ill. 2d 507 (2009)), should have been overturned based on the United States Supreme Court’s later decision in “Padilla v. Kentucky,” (559 U.S. 356 (2010)). In “Delvillar,” the Illinois Court examined the impact of the failure to give a statutory admonishment on the potential immigration consequences of entering a guilty plea. The Court concluded that the failure to admonish did not affect the voluntariness of the plea, and defendants wishing to withdraw their pleas on that basis were required to demonstrate prejudice or a denial of justice. After review of defendant Guzman’s arguments that the trial court erred in denying him the ability to withdraw his guilty plea, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial. View "Illinois v. Guzman" on Justia Law

M.A., then 13 years old, fought with her 14-year-old brother and cut him with a kitchen knife. M.A. was adjudicated delinquent of several offenses and ordered to register under the Murderer and Violent Offender Against Youth Registration Act, 730 ILCS 154/1. M.A. argued that the registration provisions violated her rights to substantive and procedural due process and equal protection. The Appellate Court rejected the substantive due process claim, but found the registration provisions unconstitutional for violating procedural due process and equal protection. The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the registration requirement. Current dangerousness is not relevant to the duty to register, so M.A. did not have a due process right to a hearing to address that issue. The Act requires registration solely based upon the fact of conviction or adjudication, which M.A. had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity to contest during her juvenile adjudication proceedings. M.A. did not challenge her adjudication as a juvenile delinquent on appeal. Given that the charges for which M.A. is required to register would be felonies if M.A. committed those acts as an adult, and that those charges require a finding that the offender caused “great bodily harm, permanent disability, or disfigurement,” there is a rational relationship between M.A.’s registration and protection of the public. View "In re M.A." on Justia Law