so my name is john no ak i mean assistant state's attorney from cook county and i represent the people of the state of illinois in this case felony convictions have consequences those consequences include a likely term of imprisonment any bar on possessing firearms illinois unlawful use of a weapon by a felon statute is simple it bars felons from possessing guns here this defendant had a conviction a felony conviction on the books at the time you possess this weapon and have the status of a felon this was undisputed at trial the parties stipulated to it and defendant expressly agreed the fact that he had of an issue of doctrine and state absolutely no impact on it whatsoever a u w statute that class four form is way to have an issue but the consequences of those already convicted under that particular section remain contain the self help exception convicted felons cannot decide for themselves that they have actually been convicted of a felony so that they can actually go out and possess a gun they don't have that right to engage in self help just like it's no different than a defendant deciding for himself that he hasn't actually been convicted of a belly so he doesn't even release him so from prison he can escape with no consequences in both cases in both  must go to court and have that conviction vacated before he can leave prison and before he moves us a gun and that's why comparing this you doubly by one statute to the fence of a seat is important because both statutes use that same phrase a convicted of killing a person who has been convicted of a felony may not intentionally escape from a penal institution likewise a person who has been convicted of a felony may not possess a firear before either may occur offense must go to court and have that conviction rate but under the appellate court's logic here the person who escaped from prison either before or after i go are being incarcerated for that class for form of a u w it's that certainty as to the status of the felony on the data possession that matters and that's where this court's decision in people vs it isn't it comes into play and it's analogous in any it involved driving on a suspended license clearly it is a reading that makes criminal culpability certain as drivers you know the driving on a suspended license is a crime irrespective of any future riches and they're less likely to drive on a suspended license and those who believe there is a chance of escaping criminal country and because these felonies still in the possession statutes are relatively simple and in fact in many of these other cases from the federal circuits and across the country those defendants after they were possessed a weapon actually smellie of them went into court and had the predicate conviction declared dating back to a time before the felony possession so they actually went to court after the felony possession and got an order saying dating back to before the possession that wiping it off the books but the fact that it actually was on the books when that convictions that were predicated and obtain in violation of a constitutional right or amendment beginning of course first of foremost with lewis in lewis there the predicate conviction was constitutionally invalid so it's statutory exception for felons to possess a gun under the statute but in the cases that are you cite the predicate offense that was later struck down as unconstitutional i think unconstitutional for exercising the that conviction was actually on the books would be to say that again quoting it to escaping from prison again that would say that any definitive who's in classwork world of in prison at the time may now right now even before i  help is to go to court and have that conviction baby before he takes a lot of his own hands and arms and self or freez weapon and then we also know that there are two types of that element currently of a class two and a class four felony so it tells us his prior conviction was a class for one case unloaded i included copies of the indictment from the two thousand and two case and so it's clear that he pled guilty to the first count of the six count indictment and that was a one three a so it was  class two or class four he received one year probation and assuming that he got the last four but it's not specific in the indictment or in the indictment in the two thousand and eight  this case is a reasonable doubt argument pure and simple the question here is easy wasn't document that in proven guilty of unlawful use of weapon by felon and the answer is no because the state failed to prove and essential element of the offense is is there any logical reason for treating defendants differently based on how or why the earlier conviction is vacated let me give an example you know the summa defending was later found to be innocent of the earlier  i mean church should the law distinguish missing someone who's earlier conviction is bad because he didn't commit the crime and someone was earlier conviction is bad because it was based on a void statute is there any logical distinction to be made there well there is a distinction because when the the defendant in a situation that was eventually exonerated of a fire was charged and prosecuted he was charged and prosecuted for crime and in applications avoid have an issue of doctoring to a statute that never criminalized that criminalized constitutionally protected conduct it's as if that right never existed and so there is a distinction there  that's true it you know he might see more sympathetic but this is the you know the way that it should actions been applied in this fashion for years and years in illinois and i guess you could say it's equally sympathetic is so far not been declared unconstitutional it would subject to constitutional attack under the second amendment and due process are you suggesting that the conviction was automatically  think that's an un realistic argument to make you know there are there are legal and department of corrections processes that need to be that need to be you know  in order to get out of prison i don't think i think that's an unrealistic argument that let's put this way beyond what is going on in this case it's not going to open up the floodgates and in fact this court is not  has not waiver from void haven't issued doctrine in circumstances such as like the aggravated arson cases where people committed crimes and committed conduct that was later const because the statute didn't punish constitute i'm sorry it didn't stop punishing criminal conduct and this court had no problem in those cases to declare those convictions w you're not in order to be not in order to challenge a conviction under that unconstitutional statute you know again we're talking about a reasonable doubt argument here what he needs to do people want wives to get out of prison that's a long other story in reference to the predicates but those predicates were voided if you will for a procedural infirmity such as like a brady violation or a lack none of those cases involve a situation here where the state was using a statu and just to show you again unrealistic aspect of the state's argument they're saying that even if we're not here mcfadden goes into court and asks the court to vacate his aggravated on the use of a weapon s t conviction he's still guilty of u u w f because the state charged him with aggravated on the use of a weapon in this case it's you know i think it would violate due process guarantees to forever punish those people branded as vallance when that brain and should have even occurred in the first place and that is that a simple example would be to swap out the term of the family involved with some more obviously you approachable statute like the right interracial marriage you know the state's argument if you buy it so that you know if somebody was convicted thirty years ago of interracial marriage that was a felony on the books back then it's obviously void have an issue oh if he didn't happen to go into court and ask that it vacated and then he picks up a weapon he shouldn't be able to be convicted works to declare the statute at issue void from the time of it's an accident and that's been the way this this state has applied it so that prior conviction was never valid legal effect we can't you know even use the past but we cannot use those statutes and we cannot recognize them as valid law and they could not be used at the time up until the time they were declared invalid know when you're charging obviously the state didn't know when they charge this otherwise they wouldn't charged it the way they did and that's another reason that this court should affirming a puck rescission here this is not going to open up the floodgates this is going to affect actually quite limited number of cases because the state is no longer going to be charging the predicate under the age of the unconstitutional age of the statute so find another felony or they'll charge of a different fashion so that that  happen for much but won't happen anymore so it will affect only a handful of cases on apple is included how does the fact that you say this is a reasonable doubt argument and the fact that the friend of stipulated to this conviction think that argument it doesn't affect it again i think it was if you put yourself in their shoes at the time it was very common to stipulate to the prior because nobody knew at the time that a u w would have  or plead guilty to an unconstitutional law and that would be the same scenario you can't like you can't plead guilty to not has to show the law you likewise can't stipulate to an element of the offense based on a prior that is void concerned about the ramifications of a decision that would adopt your position which seems to indicate that all of the convictions would be void and people should not have to do anything to avoid the results of their conviction such incarcerated i don't believe that i'm not really sure of your question how will this affect in any case where a person has been convicted served twenty years and then later that statu something when does it depend on the circumstance should you or should we be concerned about the ramifications of stage a scene you say it's a very practical approach to say what the time of the charge of there was a conviction that's easy we know how to  yours might be a little more difficult if should that be a concern of ours i don't believe so i'm obviously it would be in anyone's best interest to go into court and try to get their prior vacated before they goin possess a weapon but again we're talking about whether or not your myth that was proven guilty of the survives the again that i think that the state's concerns are unrealistic there are a lot of ways that the defendant can can attack his prior conviction and and many people will probably do that but we're just talking about a limited number of people whose predicates were based on this  constitutional law so i don't believe that that's an actual concern for for future reference and again we're here because of aguilar and we can't unring that bell and nor are we asking too but these are the consequences that result from when a you know a statute is declared unconstitutional so once these things get straighten out and once certain scenarios kid addressed by this court it's unlikely that future conflicts law rights in this conte act and by affirming the appellate court's decision in this case this court would be doing just that it would be correcting the wrongs that were created by the unconstitutional statute of aggravated  and the state's attempt to use to re punish someone for the constitutional conduct so therefore the square should affirm the appellate court's decision in this case and also remand the case for be sentencing on the stomach and its armed robbery convictions thank you convicted of a felony when you possess that weapon on january twenty eighth two thousand we the state is not asking for any change whatsoever to this court but would happen issue dr none whatsoever class chloroform of a u w is void ab initio but the fact of those convicted under that statute remain in till the defendant actually goes to court and has that conviction and it's true isn't arguing this is not limited simply to statutes that are clear for that issue no matter what the reason why that predicate convictions later invalidated a future whether it's for this reason or not is justice thomas was asking about for reasonable doubt to have that conviction be undermined after the fact of possession it just encourages defendants to gauge in self help this defendant had to have that conviction vacated before he possessed the weapon in this case whole court's rationale here it would be to encourage self help in these kind of instances after the fact of conviction the defendant the consequences remain until the defendant actually goes to court has that conviction on that date would result in an absurdity he was convicted that he agreed to it on the record at trial there's also no due process issue here whatsoever beginning with the u s supreme court's legislature pivots the possession of a firearm by a person whose felony conviction actually has not been overturned even if that conviction had bent on constitutionally obtained there is no due process violation and it's court that was was one for answers and that's right put yourselves in the shoes of not just litigants that trial but the defendant on that date on january twenty eighth two thousand and eight but yourself in his shoes he knew he had that two thousand and two aggravated off you said i think conviction on his background and yet he still possessed that firearm and then went on to commit to armed robberies that day again your honour's we are not arguing for any change to this court without an issue based on a number of factors based on his extensive criminal background aside from that conviction and based on the facts in this case this defendant received a concurrent sentence for two on roberts that was just eight years above the minimum and sixteen years below the maximum this defendant in addition to that two thousand to a w conviction and a juvenile disposition for aggravated battery and adult conditions for aggravated battery battery resisting arrest aggravated assault criminal trespass t vehicle assault driving under the influence and a felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to lever and the facts of this case would be just and there would be no change whatsoever to no reason to remand this if this court were some reason to adopt mcfadden will be taken under advisement his agenda number two i missed in no way was real thank you for your arguments today you are skewes at this time