2019 IL App (1st) 163182 SIXTH DIVISION MARCH 29, 2019 No. 1-16-3182

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS , ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff

- Appellee , ) Cook County. )
v. ) No. 15 CR 20308 ) ROBERT SCHULTZ , ) Honorable ) Thaddeus L. Wilson, Defendant -Appellant. ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE CUNNINGHAM deli vered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Delort and Justice Connors concurred in the judgment and opinion. O PINION ¶ 1 The d efendant

- appellant , Robert Schultz , seeks a reduction of his Class 2 conviction for unlawful use or possession of a weapon by a felon (UUWF) to a Class 3 offense, because he claims that the S tate did not prove that he had a prior conviction for a “forcible felony .” For the following reasons, w e reject the defendant’s argument and affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County. ¶ 2 BACKGROUND ¶ 3 In December 2015, the d efendant was charged by indictment with s even counts , including two counts of UUWF (counts I and II) and five counts of aggravated unlawful use of a
weapon (counts III through V). With respect to count I, which is the only relevant count in this appeal, the indictment alleged that the defendant “committed the offense of unlawful use or possession of a weapon by a felon in that he knowingly possessed on or about his person any firearm, after having been pre viously convicted of the felony offense of felony firearm under1-16-3182

2 case number 12

- 009438 (Wayne County, Michigan), in violation of Chapter 720 Act 4 Section
24- 1.1(a) of the Illinois Compiled Statu t es ***.” The indictment also specified that “The State shall seek to sentence him as a Class 2 offender in that he has been previously convicted of felony firearm under case number 12-009438 (Wayne County, Michigan).” ¶ 4 The circuit court conducted a bench trial on October 6, 2016. T he State first called a witness from the Illinois State Police F irearm Services Bureau, who t estified that there was no record of the defendant ever having a Fi rearm Owner Identification Card or con c ealed carry license. The State then called the defendant’s arresting officer , Michael Power. Officer Power testified that he was driving an unmarked police vehicle when he noticed a number of individuals, including the defendant, loitering near a van . When Officer Power approached the

van to condu ct a field inte r view, the defendant removed a handgun from his waistband and “tossed it u ndern eath the car onto the g round.” Officer Power arrested the defendant and recovered the h andgun at the scene

. ¶ 5 In addition to this testimony, t he State also offered into evidence the following stipulation: “ It is hereby stipulated by and through the parties, the defendant, Robert Schultz, has prior felony convictions for the offenses of assault with a dangerous weapon and carrying a fir e arm while committing or attempt ing to co m mit a felo ny in Wayne County, Michigan, under
Case 12 -009438.” Defense counsel agreed that this was “So stipulated.” The State rested following the stipulation

. ¶ 6 The defendant called a single witness, Ronni e Burnett, who testified that he was with the defendant at the time of his arrest but denied seeing the defendant with a gun

. The d efendant elected not to testify.1-16-3182

3 ¶ 7 After closing arguments, t he trial court found the de fendant guilty of all counts. The court ordered a presentencing investigation report (PSI report ) and scheduled posttria l mo tions and sentencing

. ¶ 8 The defendant’s PSI report reflected a prior conviction in Michigan for “Assault With a Dangerous W eapon” under c ase No. 1200943801. Attached to the PSI report is a “Crimi nal History Record” from Mi ch igan , reflecting that in January 2013 defendant was con victed of felony “assault with a dangerous weapon” under section 750.82 of the Mich igan Penal Code. Mich. Comp. L aws § 750.82 (1994). ¶ 9 On No vember 18, 2016, the court denied the defendant’s motio n for new trial and proceeded to sentencing. In aggravation, the State referenced the two prior Michigan convictions in the trial stipulation but did not offer specific evidence about the circumstances of either conviction. The State requested a sentence in the range of three to seven ye ars . ¶ 10 After hearing evide nce in mitigation, the court de ter mine d that all counts merged into
count I for UUWF and sentenced the defendant on that count to four years in the Illinois Department of Corrections, plus two years of mandatory supervised release. The transcript does not reflect that the court orally stated whether it found that the offense was a Class 2 or Class 3 felony. However, the court’s written sentencing order specified a Class 2 conviction for UUWF. ¶ 11 After the defendant’s motion to reconsid er sentence was denied , defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction. Ill. S. Ct. R. 606(b) (eff. Dec. 11, 2014). ¶ 12 ANALYSIS ¶ 13 On appeal, the defendant does not dispute that he possessed a firearm on the date of his

arrest. Rather, he raises a single sentencing issue

. He asserts that his Class 2 UUWF conviction should be reduced to a Class 3 conviction, because the State failed to prove that either of the1-16-3182

4 prior Michigan convictions referenced in the trial stipulation constitu ted a “forcible felony .” See 720 ILCS 5/24

- 1.1(e) (West 2016) (violation of the UUWF statute by a person “who has been convicted of a forcible felony” is a Class 2 felony , rather than a Class 3 offense). ¶ 14 The d efendant acknowledges the trial stipulation referencing two prior Michigan convictions , but he argues that the State failed to pr ove that either of the stipulated convictions

was a “ forcible felony ” as that term is defined by section 2- 8 of the Criminal Code of 2012 (Code) ( id. § 2-8). He claims that because neither of the prior Mi chigan offenses is explicitly named as a “forcible felony” in section 2 -8, the State was required to offer additional evidence regarding the circumstances of the prior crimes, to prove t hat either fell within the so - called

“ residual clause ” of section 2

- 8 of the Code

. See id. (extending the definition of a forcible felony to “any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual ”)

. The d efendant thus argues that the State failed to meet its burden to prove a prior “forcible felony,” as necessary to warrant a Class 2 UUWF conviction. ¶ 15 The defendant acknowledges that this issue was forfeited , as he did not raise this argument in the trial court. Nonetheless, he urges that we should consider it under the plain

- error rule, wh ich “bypasses normal forfeiture principles and allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved claims of error in specific circumstances.” People v. Thompson , 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 (2010). The d efendant relies on the second prong of the plain

- error doctrine , which applies if “a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious tha t it affected the fairness o f the defendant’s t rial and challenged the integrity of th e jud icial process.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. ¶ 16 T he State responds that there was no error and thus no plain erro r. See id. (“The first step of plain

- error review is determining whether any error occurred.”)

. The State urges that the trial1-16-3182

5 stipulation was sufficient to support his Class 2 UUWF conviction, even without evidence of the specific facts underlying the prior Michigan convictions, because both Michigan convictions

were “inherently forcible felonies .” T hat is, the State contends tha t either of the prior Michigan offense s f ell within the residual clause of section 2 -8 and , thus, both were forcible felonies
suppo rting enhancement to a Class 2 conviction. ¶ 17 The sentencing provis ion of the UUWF statute states : “Violation of this Section by a person not confined in a penal institution shall be a Class 3 felony for which the person shall be sentenced to no less than 2 years and no more than 10 years ***. Violation of this Section by a person not confined in a penal instituti on who has been convicted of a forcible felony *** is a Class 2 felony for which the person shall be sentenced to no t less than 3 years and not more than 14 years.” (Emphasis added.) 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(e) (West 2016). In other words, “ th e offense of unlawful use of a weapon by a fe lon is enhanced f ro m a Class 3 felony to a Class 2 felony when the d efendant has previously been convicted of a fo rc ib le felony. [Citation.]” People v. Carmichael , 343 Ill. App. 3d 855, 859 (2003). ¶ 18 The term “forcible felony” is def ined by section 2

- 8 of the Code

. See 720 ILCS 5/2

- 8 (West 2016)

. Section 2

- 8 of the Code first sets forth a list of certain enumerated offenses that constitute forcible felonies , 1 which is followed by a residual clause that encompasses “any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.” Id.

1 The enumerated offenses are “treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated1-16-3182

6 ¶ 19 The parties agree that n either of the Michigan convictions referenced in the stipulation at defendant’s trial is included in section 2

- 8’s list of enumerated offenses. Thus, the cru x of this appeal is whether either of those prior Michigan convictions falls within the residual clause of

s ection 2 -8. “Interpretation of the forcible felony statute is an issue of law, which we review de novo .” People v. Sanderson , 2016 IL App ( 1st ) 141381, ¶ 5 (citing People v. Belk , 203 Ill. 2d 187, 192 (2003)). ¶ 20 “An unenumerated felony falls within the residual clause if the defendant ‘contemplated that the use of force or violence against an individual migh t b e invo lved and [was] willing to use such force or violence.’ (Emph asis in original.) [ Belk , 203 Ill. 2d at 196.] But the defendant need not actually inflict physical injury. [Citation.]” Id. ¶ 21 “ [C] rimes fall under the residual clause in one of two ways. First, whe re on e of a crim e ’s elements is ‘a specific intent’ to carry out a violent act, every instance of that crime ‘necessarily qualifies’ as a forcible felony .” Id. ¶ 6 (quoting People v. Thomas , 407 Ill. App. 3d 136, 139-40 (2011)). Thus, certain crimes , by definition , are necessarily considered forcible felonies, even absent specific evidence of the circumstances of t he prior offense

. For example, in Thomas , the defendant challenge d his conviction under the armed habitual criminal statute (which required

two predicate forcible felonies) on the grounds that “proof of his previous conviction for attempted murder did not prove that he committed a forcible felony.” 407 Ill. App. 3d at 1 38-39.
Our court thus “review[ed] de novo the question of law as to whether evidence that a d efendant had a prio r convi ction for attempted murder, witho ut any details abou t the crime, p rove s that he

battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement.” 720 ILCS 5/2- 8 (West 2016).1-16-3182

7 committed a forcible felony .” Id. at 139. We held that attempted murder is necessarily a forcible felony:

“ Because every attempted murder involves a specific intent to cause death, the trier of fact who finds a person guilty of attempted murder must find that the guilty person contemplated the use of sufficient force to cau s e very serious injury, injury that can lead to death. Acc ordi ngly, we hold tha t eve ry attempted m urde r qu alifies as a forcible felony for purposes of the armed habitual criminal
statute ***.” Id. at 140. ¶ 22 Thus, to determine if a crime is inherently a forcible felony, we perform “ an analysis of the elements of the underlying offense to determine whether proof of those elements necessarily entails the use or threat of force or violence against an individual.” Sanderson , 2016 IL App ( 1st ) 141381, ¶ 6. Under that approach , we have hel d that attempted armed robbery is an “inherently forcible felony ” because it “requires evidence that a defendant possessed the specific intent to knowingly take property from another by threat or use of force while armed with a firearm. ” People v. Brown , 2017 IL App ( 1st ) 150146, ¶ ¶ 19-22. We have also held that vehicular hijacking is an inherently forcible felony , because “the act of taking a motor vehicle from a person by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force necessarily involves at least the contemplation that violence might be necessary to carry out the crime.” People v. Wooden , 2014 IL App ( 1st ) 130907, ¶ 20. ¶ 23 “T he second way a felony can qualify as a forcible f elony, even if a crime does not have violent intent as an element , is if the State proves that ‘under the particular fact s of this ca s e,’ the defendant contemplated the use of force and was willing to use it. ” Sanderson , 2016 IL App (1st)1-16-3182

8 141381, ¶ 7 (quoting Belk , 203 Ill. 2d at 195)

. Our supreme court’s decision in Belk illustrates this principle. The Belk defendant stole a vehicle and fled from police before crashing the vehicle, resulting in two deaths

. 203 Ill. 2d at 189. T he de fendant was convicted of felony murder , b ased on the predicate felony of aggravated possession of a stolen motor vehicle

. Id. at 191. The defendant argued that the predicate offense was not a f orcible felo ny, as required to implicate the felony -murder statute. Id. ¶ 24 Because aggravated possession of a stolen motor vehicle was not one of the specifica lly enumerated felonies in section 2- 8 of the Code, our supreme court framed the issue as “ whether, under the fact s of this case, Belk’s aggravated possession of a stolen mot or vehicle involved the use or thre at of physical for ce or violence again st any in dividual .” Id. at 193. Our supreme cou rt discussed whether there was “ any evidence which would give rise to an inference that at some point durin g his attempt to elude the p o lice [ defendant] contemplated that escap e might invo lv e the use of for c e or violence against an individual.” Id. at 195. The court answer ed in the negative, finding that , although Belk may have “acted recklessly,” the evidence “doe s not support an inferen ce that Belk conte mplated tha t the use of force or violence against an individual might be necessary in order for him to accomplish his escape.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. Thus, our supreme court held that there was not a forcible felony supporting a felony murder conviction. Id. at 197-98. ¶ 25 In addition to Belk , defendant relies on more recent decisions of our court holding that , if

a prior conviction was not inhere ntly a forcible felony, then the State must offer specific evidence to show that the prior crime involv ed the use or threat of force. Thus, in Sanderson , 2016 IL App (1st) 141381, our court reversed a conviction for the offense of being an armed habitual cri minal, to the extent it was premised up on a prior conviction for attempted residential1-16-3182

9 burglary. We held that the attempted burglary was “not in h erent ly a forcible felony , since its eleme nt s do n ot include a specific intent to carr y out a violent act .” Id. ¶ 9. Furthermore, the State offered “no evidence that, under the particular fact s of this ca s e, Sa nderson conte mplated the use of force .” Id. ¶ 11. Wi thout such evidence, the State could not prove the defendant’s

“ willingness to use violence against an other , which would be necessary for his conviction to constitute a forcible felony.” Id. ¶ 12. ¶ 26 T he defendant also directs us to Carmichael , 343 Ill. App. 3d 855

. Similar to the instant appeal, Carmichael concerned whether a prior stipulated conviction was a forcible felony that supported enhancement of a UUWF conviction to a Class 2 felony

. Id. at 85 7-58. The Carmichael defendant’s trial counsel stipulated that defendant had a prio r conviction for armed violence , but the State did not introduce evidence regarding the circumstance s of that prior offense

. Id. at 858. We reasoned that, since the “record [was] silent as to the circumstances surrounding the def en da nt’s armed violence conviction,” we could not as sess whether the defendant “contemplated th at the use or thre at of forc e or violence m ight be necessa ry to carry out” the prior crime

. Id. at 861. We further de termined that armed violence was not an “inherently violent ” offense, as it could be “ committed b y merely possessing a firearm” durin g the commission of a nonviolent felony

. Id. 2 Thus, we concluded that the t r ial cour t erred in enhancing the UUWF conviction to a Class 2 felony. Id. ¶ 27 The defendant’s opening brief relies on Carmichael and Sanderson to urge that the State was required to offer proof of the particular facts and circumstances of the prior Michigan convictions, beyond the trial stipulati on, to prove that either offense was a forcible felony. However, the defendant ’s argument ignores our precedent holding that such particularized proof

2 Further, the parties in Carmichael agreed on appeal that the armed violence conviction was “based upon [defendant’s] commission of the predicate felony of possession of a controlled substance.” Carmichael , 343 Ill. App. 3d at 860.1-16-3182

10 is not nec essary, if a defendant ’s prior conviction was for an inherently forcible felony . Indeed, the Sanderson decision explicitly recognizes that “crimes fall under the residual clause [of section 2 -8] in one of two ways” ; either the elements are such that “every instance of that crime necessarily qualifies as a forcible felony ,” or the State can p rove that “ under the par ticular facts of this case, the d efendant contemp lated the use of for ce an d was willing to use it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sanderson , 2016 IL App ( 1st ) 14 1381, ¶¶ 6-7. ¶ 28 The State urges that either of the two prior Michig an convictions referenced in the tri al stipulation inherently constitutes a forcible felony. First, to the extent the stipulation referred to the defendant’s prior felony conviction for “assault with a dangerous weapon,” t he State argues

t hat this stipulation (as well as the PSI report and other documents in the record) prove that he was convicted under Michigan’s felonious assault statute, section 750 .82 of the Michigan Penal Code (M ich. Comp. L aws § 750.82 (1994)). The State urges that the languag e of that statu t e, as well as Michigan case law defining “ assault ,” establish es that this conviction necessarily qualifies as a forcible felony

. ¶ 29 In response, the d efendant’s reply brief first argues that the State cannot rely on any Michigan statute because “the prosecutor did not refer to the Michigan statutes [ the defendant] viola ted” at trial or during sentencing

. The d efendant does not dispute that the PSI report and other record documents reflect that he was, in fact, convic ted under section 750.82. However , he argues that “[b] ecause the criminal history report wa s not introduced at trial and the prosecutor never referred to the particular [Michigan] statutes *** at sentencing, it is improper for the State to rely on them” in this appeal. The defendant essentially argues that, since the trial stipulation did not cite a specific statute, the State cannot refe r to any statute in its argument before our

court.1-16-3182

11 ¶ 30 We disagree. At trial, the defendant stipulated that he was convicted in Michigan of two felonies, including “assault with a dangerous weapon.” We recognize that the State was somewhat careless in crafting the wording of the stipulation, to the extent that it failed to include a citation to the precise Michigan statute underlying that prior conviction. We certainly do not mean to encourage that practice , and we admonish the State to be more precise in such stipulations, especially when referencing prior out -of- state convictions

. Nonetheless, we d o not find that this omission leads to reversible error in this case, as the defendant does not cite (and we are not aware of) any a uthority that would preclude the trial court from taking notice of the Michigan le gal authorities that define the stipulated offense. As discussed below, those authorities make clear that a felony for “assault with a dangerous” weapon in Michigan would be premised under section 750.82. Further, the defendant does not d ispute that the trial stipulation referred to his prior conviction und er section 750.82. 3 ¶ 31 The defendant’s reply other wise suggests that it is improper for our court to consider whether an out-of- state statute describes a “ forcible felony ” for purposes of the Code section 2

- 8’s residual clause . He acknowledges that “Illinois courts have evaluated Illinois statutes” to determine i f an offense is inherently a forcible felony under section 2 -8 but points out that “the State cites no cases where out of state statutes were examined.” We reject the defendant’s suggestion . Our prece dent indicates that we may conduct “an analysis of the elements of the

3 We note that other record documents make clear that the defendant was, in fact, convicted under section 750.82 of the Michigan Penal Code . The PSI report references a conviction for “Assault with a Dangerous Weapon” in c ase No. 1200943801; the Michigan criminal history records state (under the same case number) that he was convicted of “Assault With [a] Dangerous Weapon,” explicitly referencing “750.82” as the statutory basis for that conviction. The defendant does not dispute the accuracy of these records. We recognize that these sentencing documents could not be relied upon by the trial court as evidence that the prior conviction was for a violation of section 750.82; nonetheless, they undermine any suggestion that the stipulated conviction at issue could have referred to some other offense.1-16-3182

12 underlying offense to determine whether p roof of those elements necessarily entails the use or threat of force or violence.” Sanderson , 2016 IL App ( 1st ) 141381 , ¶ 6. The defendant does not cite any authority suggesting that we are precluded from applying that same analysis to crimes committed in other jurisdictions . Moreover, nothing in section 2

- 8 of the Code suggests that only a prior conviction under Illinois law may constitute a “fe lony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.” 720 ILCS 5/2

- 8 (West 2016). Similarly, the UUWF statute d oes not suggest that only Illinois forcible felonies may support a sentencing enhancement to a Class 2 offense. See id. § 24-1.1 (e)

. ¶ 32 We thus reach the question of whether the defendant’s prior Michigan conviction for “assault with a dangerous weapon” constituted a forcible felony. The d efendant urges that , even assuming that he was “found guilty of felonious assault pursuant to [ section 750.82 of the Michigan Penal Code ] , this offense does not inherently constitute a forcible felony.” As set forth below, we disagree. ¶ 33 Section 750.82 of the Michigan Penal Code is entitled “Felonious a ssault; violation in a

we apon free school zone” and provides, in relevant part: “Except as provided in subsection (2) , [ 4 ] a person who assaults another person with a gun, revolver, pistol, knife, iron bar, club, brass knuckles, or other dangerous weapon without intending to commit murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.” M ich. Comp.
L aws § 750.82 (1994).

4 Subsection (2) refers to a violation of subsection (1) “in a weapon free school zone.” Mich. Comp. L aws § 750.82 (1994)

.1-16-3182

13 ¶ 34 We first note, as recognized by the parties, that Michigan lacks a statutory definition for the crime of simple “ assault. ” However , in Peo ple v. Gardner , 265 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 1978), the Michigan Supreme Court approved of three separate definitions of criminal assault, derived from three different treatises. First, the Michigan S upreme C ourt stated: “We adopt what Perkins on Criminal Law *** s ays is the majority rule, namely a simple criminal assault is made out from either an attempt to commit a battery or an unlawful act which places another in reasonable
appre hension of receiving an immediate battery.” (Internal quotation marks omitted). Id. a t 7. The Gardner court further approved definitions from two additional treatises

. See id. ( “We also hold that either the Cyclopedia or the Bishop definition *** is an adequate definition of a form of assault and that both forms are actionable in the cri minal law.” ). Thus, the Michigan Supreme Court also approved two other definition s: (1) “ [a] n assault is any attempt or offer with force or violence to do a corporal hurt to another, whether from malice or wantonness, with such cir c umstances as denot e at the ti m e an intention to do it, coupled with a pres e nt abil i ty to carry such intention into effect ” and (2) “ [a] n assault is any unlawf ul physical force *** creating a reasonable apprehension of immediate injury to a human b eing .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 6. ¶ 35 The State notes that two of the three definitions of assault approved in Gardner include the term “force” and thus argues: “The fact that ‘force’ is a defined element of assault shows that some measure of vio lence was not only contemplated but carried out by defendant.” The State thus suggests that Gar dn er establishes t hat any assault is necessarily a forcible felony. ¶ 36 The d efendant ’s reply brief emphasizes the remaining definition approved by Gardner , i.e. , that “a simple criminal assault is made out from either an attempt to commit a battery or an unlawful act which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving an immediate1-16-3182

14 battery.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 7. The defendant argues that , because this definition do es not “ inclu d e either the use or threat of force ” as an element, Gar dn er establishes

“ that a Michigan felonious assault conviction doe s n ot in herently const itute a forcible felony in Illinois .” ¶ 37 We disagree. First, we are no t convinced that the Gardner defini tion relied upon by defendant does not describe an inherently forcible act. That definition states that a simple criminal assault is an “either an attempt to commit a battery or an unlawful act which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving an immediate battery.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. We recognize that this definition does not use the precise terms “thre at” or “force.” Yet, e ven under this definition, we fail to see how one can attempt to commit a battery , or place another in reasonable apprehension of receiving an immediate battery , without contempl ating or threatening the use of force. Notably, defendan t does not even attempt to argue how one could commit an assault under this definition without contemplating or threatening force or violence. ¶ 38 More importantly, whereas Gardner concerned the common- law definition of simple assault , in this case, defendant stipula ted to a Michigan felony conviction for “assault with a dangerous weapon.” As discus sed, the record makes clear that this referred to defendant’s conviction under Michigan’s “felonious assault” statute (Mich. Comp. L aws § 750.82 (1994)). 5 Michigan authorities make clear that a conviction under this statute requires additional elements beyond the commission of the “ simple assault ” defined in Gardner

. ¶ 39 Significantly, in a decision just one year after Gardner , the Michigan Supreme Court held that, in pr osecutions for felonious assault under section 750.82 , “the jury should be instructed that there must be either an inte n t to in jure or an inte n t to put the victim in r easonabl e fear or

5 Michigan courts refer to this statutory offense as either “assault with a dangerous weapon” or “felonious assault.” See, e.g. , People v. Bosca , 871 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (using both terms to refer to violations of section 750.82 of the Michigan Penal Code ).1-16-3182

15 apprehension of an immediate battery.” People v. Johnson , 284 N.W.2d 718, 718 -19 (Mich. 1979). Thus, Michigan courts now recognize that “[t] o perpetrate a felonious assault, a defenda n t must commit ‘(1) an assault, (2) with a dangerous weapon, and (3) with the intent to injur e or place the victim in reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery

. ’ [Citation.]” People v. Nix , 836 N.W.2d 224, 230 ( Mich. Ct. App. 2013); see also People v. Bosca , 871 N.W.2d 307, 325 ( Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (“ ‘ The elements of [assault with a dangerous weapon] are (1) a n assault, (2) with a dangerous weapon, and (3) with the intent to injure or place the victim in reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery. [Citation.]”). ¶ 40 We note that this case law precedent refutes the argument in the defendant’s reply brief that relies upon the portion of the felon ious assault statute specifying that it is committed

“ without intending to commit murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder.” (Emphasis added.) M ich . Comp. L aws Ann

. § 750.82 (West 1994)

. The d efendant suggest s that “it cannot be said that a felonious assault conviction is inherently violent *** wher e an element of felonious assault is that the defendant lack an intent to inflict severe bodily harm .” The d efendant’s argument is without merit, as it confuses the lack of intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm as equivalent to the lack of any intent to use or threaten force . However , th e Michigan case law precedent clar ifies that a conviction under section 750.82 requires a finding that defendant intended to injure or place the victim in reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery. ¶ 41 Under this precedent, it is app arent that defendant’s stipulated Michigan conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon included findings that de fendant had made “either an attempt to commit a battery or an unlawful act which place[d] another in reasonable apprehension of receiving an immediate battery,” that he did so with a dangerous weapon, and that he acted with1-16-3182

16 “either an intent to injure or an intent to put the victim in reasonable fear or apprehension of an immediate battery.” Johnson , 284 N.W.2d at 718 -19 ; M ich. Comp. L aws § 750.82 (1994)

. Especially considering the requisite intent for this offense , w e cannot see , and the defendant does not attempt to articulate, how one could violate section 750.82 of the Michigan Penal Code without “ t he use or threa t of physical force or violence , ” within the meaning of section 2

- 8 of the Code ( 720 ILCS 5/2

- 8 (West 2016) ). Thus, upon considering relevant Michigan authorities, we hold that defendant’s prior conviction for violation of section 750.82 of the Michigan Penal Code was inherently a forcible felon y pursuant to se ction 2 -8 of the Code. ¶ 42 As the State points out, it needed only to prove that one of the two stipulated prior Michigan convictions was a forcible felony, in order to support the enhancement of the defendant’s UUWF conviction to a Class 2 offense. See id. § 24-1.1 (e)

. As we have determined that the defendant’s stipulated conviction for “assault with a dangerous weapon” constituted a forcible felony, we need not a ddress the parties’ arguments regarding the other prior Michigan conviction referenced in the trial stipulation, for “carrying a firearm while committing or attempting to commit a felony.” ¶ 43 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County. ¶ 44 Affirmed.