Defendants convicted of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon can be charged with individual counts for each firearm possession and firearm ammunition possession. For example, if a convicted felon is carrying two loaded guns, he could be charged with four counts: two counts for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and two counts for unlawful possession of firearm ammunition by a felon.
The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Almond addressed whether two separate charges relating to one firearm are permissible under the one-act, one-crime rule. The appellate court held that the “defendant could receive only one conviction ‘based on the same physical act of possessing one loaded firearm.’”
One justice disagreed with the majority relying on the court’s decision in People v. Anthony where the First District “held that separate convictions for a single loaded firearm were permissible.”
In October 2008, the defendant was arrested at a liquor store and officers found a single loaded gun in his possession. The defendant, who had prior felony convictions, faced multiple charges “relating to possession of a firearm by a felon.” He was convicted and sentenced concurrent terms of six years and three years imprisonment.
The unlawful use of weapons by a felon statute Section 24-1.1(e) provides that “[t]he possession of each firearm or firearm ammunition in violation of this Section constitute a single and separate violation.” 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(e). The Supreme Court interpreted thing language to “not only criminalize[] the possession of any firearm ammunition by a felon, but also clarifies that the possession of each firearm or firearm ammunition by a felony constitutes a single and separate violation.”
In July 2005, the General Assembly amended the UUW statute to allow for “single and separate” violations. The amendment was a response to the Illinois Supreme Court’s holding in People v. Carter that the UUW statute at the time “did not permit separate convictions for simultaneous possession.”
The defendant argued that the statute as amended is ambiguous because “it does not distinguish between loaded and unloaded firearms.” The Court found that the distinction was irrelevant because the plain meaning of the statute “clearly prohibits a felon’s possession of any firearm or firearm ammunition, and it renders each possession of either item a single and separate violation.”
Thus, the court held, “the UUW by a felon statute prohibits felons from possessing (1) a loaded firearm; (2) an unloaded firearm; or (3) ammunition, whether loaded in a firearm or not.”
The court rejected the defendant’s one-act, one-crime rule challenge, finding that the “defendant’s possession of a firearm and his possession of firearm ammunition, both occurring when he was a felon, are separate acts that support his two convictions.”
If you have questions, be sure to call the Law Offices of Laura Morask!
