No. 3–07–0404

______________________________________________________________________________ File d January

8, 2009 Correction

IN THE A

PPELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS THIRD DI STRICT A.D., 2008 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ILLINO IS, ) of th e 1 0th Judi ci al Ci rc ui t, ) Pe o r ia C o un t y, I llino is Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) No. 06-CF-851 v. ) ) RAYMO ND JOHNSON, ) Honorable ) St uar t P. Bo rd en, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CECA

RT ER de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t:

______________________________________________________________________________ Af ter a s t ipu lat ed be nc h t r ial, defen dant was f ound g uil ty of aggra va ted b attery

wi th a f i rearm (720 ILCS 5/12–

4.2(a)( 1) (West 200 6)), agg ravated un

l awf ul use of a weap on (72 0 IL C S 5/24–1.6(a)(1) (West 2006)), and unl awful po ss es sio n o f awe ap o n by a fel on (720 ILCS 5/24–1.1(a) (West 20 06 )) a

n d w as se n ten ce d to c on cu

rre n t ter m s of i m pri son men t o f 12 years , 7 years, an

d 7 years , resp ecti

ve l y . Defe ndan t appeals h

is convi ctions, argui

ng that t he t rial co ur t er re d in denying his pretri al

moti on to suppress a gun that was recovered f rom a thi rd party’s v

ehi cl e and h is pretrial
m oti on to su pp r es s his st at eme nt s t o po lice
. De fen da nt als o ar gu es t ha t his convi ction f or aggravated unl awful us e of a w ea po n mu st be va ca t ed un de ro ne - ac t , o ne - cr ime prin ci ple s. We af

fi rm the tri al
cou rt ’s deni

al of def endan t’s motion to suppress the gun a nd de fenda nt ’s mo t io n t o su pp r es s his st at ement s t o p olice. We vac at e d efe nda nt ’s c o nvict io n an d s ent enc e fo r u nlaw ful p o ss es sio n o f a
we ap on by a f elo n a nd r ema nd t his cas e t o t he t rial co ur t t o a mend t he se nt en cin g o r de rac co r di ng ly.2 FA CTS Defend ant wa s ch arge d w i th th e a b ov e- l i ste d of

f ense s i n con n ecti on wi th t he Ju ly 9, 2006, sho ot ingof

Cal vi n P owe l l i n P eori a, I l l i noi s. C oun t I of the i nd i ctm en t al l eg ed tha t on o rab o ut Ju ly 9, 20 06 , d efe nda nt co mmitt ed t he o ffens e o f agg ravated bat tery with a fi rearm (720 ILCS 5/12–4.2(a)(1) ( We st 20 06 ) ) , a C las s X felo ny, in t ha t in c o mmi tt in g a batter y, he k now ingly and withoutl egal

j ustif i cation ca use d an i nj ury to Cal vi n P owe l l by mea ns of the d i sch argi ng of a f i rearm int hat he sho t Calvin Po well with a handg un. Co unt II alleged t hat on t hat same d at e, defend ant comm itted t he o ff e nse of aggravated unlawf ul use of a weapon (720 ILCS 5/ 24–1.6( a)(1) (West 2006) ), a C las s 2 fe lo ny, in that defend ant kn o win gly c ar r ied o n o rab o ut his p er so n a nd immed iat ely
ac ce ss ible to hi

m an un ca se d l oaded h an dg un at a t ime when he w as no t on his o wn land or in h is own abode orfi

xed pl ace of b usi ness and def endan t hadbeen previously

convi cted of a fel

ony i n thi s state. Co unt II I a lleged t hat on t hat same d at e, defend ant co mmi t t ed t he offense of

un l aw f ul pos se ss i on of
a we ap o n by a felo n ( 72 0 I LC S 5 /2 4– 1. 1( a) ( We st 20 06 ) ) , a C la ss 3 fe lo ny, in tha t defend ant kn o win gly

possessed

on or ab out h i s p ers on a firea rm having be en pr eviou sly convict ed o f a felony unde r t he laws of t his st at e o r a ny ot her jurisd ictio n. Durin g the pretrial

stage of this case, defen

dant filed a m

ot ion to quash arr est and suppress evi dence (th e m oti on to supp ress the gun). In the m ot ion, def endan t alleged that he had b een subj ectedt o a n ill

ega l seizur e in violat ion o f the Unit ed S t at es a nd Ill in ois Constitut ions. Defend ant so ught su pp r es sio n o f all p hysic al e vid en ce an d s t at eme nts th at were re co ver ed a s a r esu lt o f the alle ged i l l eg al se izu re . Al th oug h th e m oti on di d n ot ar ti cul ate t he ite ms tha t defend ant so ught t o ha ve suppressed

wi th an y sp ec i f i ci ty , i t a ppears f rom the reco rd t hat with the fi rst mot ion to suppr ess, defend ant wa s p ri

mari l y se ek i ng to su ppr es s a s evi denc e a gun tha t wa s rec ove

red f rom u nder t he3

pas sen ger s eat of

a v ehi cle b elongi

ng to a th i rd party , Law rence Th omas. A hear ing was held o n t he mot ion t o s upp re ss t he gu n. At t he hea ring , de f enda n t c alle d Pe o r ia police off ic er Chri s Hanl

ey to the wi tness stand. Han

le y testi fi ed that on July

9, 2006, at about 3 or 3:30 a.m., he responded to a repo rt o f a s hoot in g on Jef ferson Street in

Peoria. Hanl

ey was about six block s aw ay at t he tim e an d was on pa trol i n a marked pol i ce s quad

car. Upo n app ro aching that addre ss, H anl ey sa

w t wo male subject s ge t into a vehicle p ar ked in the p ar king lo t of t he Fr ien ds hip House in

an area n ear where the sh

oot in g to ok place. The F

rien dshi p House was not open f orbusiness at t hat t ime. As t he vehicle left t he pa rk ingl ot, Hanl ey fol lowed the vehi

cl e, without act ivating his squad car’s overhead l igh ts. Hanle y did no t see t he vehicle c ommit a ny tr affic violat ions and the v ehi cl e di d no t at t emp t t o flee. Aft er a c o up le o f blo ck s, t he v ehic le p ulled int o t he T aft Homes an d parked in

a parkin g spot. Hanl

ey parked hi s squad car an

d il lum in ated th e v eh i cl e wi th his spotli ght. Hanley

did n ot activate hi s overhead l igh ts and did not block the veh i cl e i nto t he par king lo t wit h his squ ad c ar . T he dr iver and a pa sseng er go t ou t of t he vehicle. Defend ant was t he pas sen ger. L awrenc e Thomas wa s the dri ver. Hanl ey go t o ut o f his vehi

cle an d approached de f

endan t and Thom as. He did no t dr aw his gun. Hanley ask ed d efenda nt and T homas if they kne w anyt hingabo ut t he sho ot ing. D efenda nt and Thomas seem ed nervous an

d did n ot say muc h to Hanl ey . Hanley

asked def endan t and Thomas

what they were doing i

n the area. Thom

as responded that he worked for Caterpil la ran d that he di d n

ot get inv olve d in crim in al ac t ivit y. D efe nd an t st at ed t ha t t he y we r e v isit ing so meb o dy in the area but di d n ot go into speci fi

cs o f wh o t he y we r e v isit ing o r wh er e. De fen da nt an d T ho mas did no t as k if they were free to leav

e, and Han

le y testi fi ed that t he two men

were not f ree to l eav

e at tha t poin t. Offi cer Bu hl , Of f i cer Gof orth , an d L i eu ten an t Ad am s a rri ve d a t Ha nl ey ’s l oca ti on . Upo n4

being as ke d, def

en da nt a nd Thomasconsente d to a

se arc h of the i r pe rs on s. Ha nle y t estif

ie d that defend ant and T homas see med ver y nervo us a bou t t he who le thing . N ot hing ill ega l was fo und on Thom as or de f endan t’s pe rson . Hanl ey aske d d efenda nt and T homas for ident ifi cat ion. Afte r r ece iving the ident ifi cat ion, Hanle y ran a warrant che ck on each s ubj ect, with nega

tive res ults. Hanl

ey could n ot remem ber whether he returned the iden

tif ic ation cardsto ei

the r s ub j ec t at that ti

me. H an l ey as ke d Th omasf or perm i ss i on to search the v ehi cle. Tho mas, w ho w as t he dr iver and t he owner of the veh ic le , refused. Lie ut en an t Ad ams in

structed Hanley

to detain the two subj ects, secure them i n the b ack of a squad car, and to searc

h the v ehi cle an

y way . The officers did no t obt ain a wa rr ant for a se ar ch o f the veh ic le
. Han l ey sec ured d ef endan t and Thom as. H e coul

d not rem em ber w het he r d efenda nt and Thomas were han

dcuff ed whi le in the back of

the squad car. Upon conductin g a search, Han

le y f ound a .22-ca l i ber ha ndg un u nde r the f ront pas sen

ger s eat of

the v ehi cle. Dur ingt he enc ou nt er , d efenda nt and Thom as c omp l i ed wi

th the orderst hey wer e given by t he police off

ic ers and di

d not t ry to fl

ee. Nei ther subj ec t ever ask ed if he wa s free t o lea ve, and Hanley neve r t old eithe r su bject t hat he wa s free t o lea ve. Afte r t he gun was fou nd, defend ant and Thom as w ere tak

en to the poli ce station

f or in terrogation. Fo llowing Hanley’s t est imony, de fendant rested. The Stat e calle d Peoria poli ce lieut ena nt Je ff Ad ams to the stand. Adam s testif ie d that on July

9, 2006, at about 3:13 a.m., he was on patro l n

ear t he n orth end o f Peo ria w hen he he ar d a c all come o ver t he r adio abo ut a sho ot ing that had occurred at 817 No rth Jefferson. Adams was just around the corner from wh ere the shooting took place, so he wen t to t he sce ne . In d ri vi ng to the sce ne , Adams di

d not se e an

y one e l se out i

n the are a. Ad ams go t ou t of his ca r a nd kno cke d o n t he front door of the house at that address. Off ic er5

Land wehr joi

ned h im at that t im

e. A woman

opened the door. Wh

en the off ic ers stepped

in side, they
saw a m an l yi ng on the f

loor in a pool of bl

ood. The woman

to ld A dam s thatshe had j ust heard so me gu n sh ots b eh i n d th e h ous e a n d th at th e m an ra n i n to the front door o f the h

ouse stating that

he h ad be en shot. Ad ams left Land wehr at t hat loca t ion t o t end t o t he shootin g vi cti m and wen t outsi de, wh

ere he wa s jo ine d b y Se r ge an t Ve nz o n a nd a c o up le o f o t he ro ffice r s. Ad ams told th e oth er of f i cersto go behi nd the h ouse and to look for t he l ocation of the cri

me scene s o t hat

it could b e secured

and phy si cal evi dence could be gathered. Ada ms to ld Ve nzon to go insi

de with Landweh

r to try to get in formation on who the po ssible suspects were so t hat t hey co uld p ut t hat informat ion o ut ove r t he radi o. Wit hin

two min utes after he h ad arriv ed at the scene, Ada

ms heard on the radio t hat Off ic er Hanl ey wa s f ol l owi ng a veh i cl e that had j us t l ef t f rom the F ri endsh i p House . The Frien

dshi p House
was about one or t wo houses down from where the sh

oot in g occurred. Adams left t he sce ne o f the sho ot ingand wen

t t o back up off

ic er Hanl ey . Other than the poli

ce off ic ers that Adams m

entione d,
no one else w as o ut at t hat t ime. The busi ness es i n th e a re a a l l werecl ose d. W h en A da m s g ot to Hanley ’s locati on, the vehi cl e that Hanley

was f oll owing h ad al ready stopped. Hanley

had i ll umi nated th e v eh i cl e wi th his spo t light a nd

wa s t alk ing t o t wo ge nt leme n o ut sid e o f t he ve hic le. Ha nle y t o ld Ad ams that the

two gen tle men had agre ed to ha

ve thei r pers ons s earche d bu

t werere f us i n g to have t he vehi cle se arch ed. De sp i te t ha t r efu sa l, Ad ams dir ec t ed Ha nle y t o se ar ch t he ve hic le. Ad ams felt that th ere w as

prob ab l e c au se

to search the area w

ithi n the vehi cl e that the two gentle

me n ha d direct
access to base d o n what Officer H anley had t old him and beca use t he vehicle w as leaving fro m the
area where the sh

oot in g had occurred

wit hin a sho rt t ime later and a t a t ime of night when no one else6

was out . At the tim

e that he gave the di

rection to search the veh

ic le , Adam

s knew that defendant’s and Thomas ’s i

dentif ic ation ha d been verifi ed, that t here were n

o warrants out for ei

ther of them, that they had a gr eed t o a sea rc h of the i r pe rs on s and n

ot hi ng i ll egal was f ound, and that Thomas h ad ref use d a pol

i ce re quest for pe

rm i ssi on to sea rch the v ehi cle. Al l of the off ic ers at defen

dant’s l ocation were i

n uni form and h ad arriv ed at t ha t lo ca t io n in marked squad cars. No ne o f the officer s had t heir g uns d ra wn. Ad ams ha d t he t wo su bje ct s p ut in han dc uffs and se cur ed in the back of a poli ce squad car so that Off

ic er Buhl could watch the two sub j ects w hi l e Han l ey wassea rch i ng th e v ehi cle. Ad ams l ef t the are a as

Han l ey wassea rch i ng th e v ehi cle. Adams he ar d o ver t he ra di o th at a gun had b een f

ound in the passen

ger sec t ion o f the veh

ic le . Adam

s acknowledged that there was an assist ant St at e’s At to rney and a j udge avai

la ble i f the pol

ic e off ic ers wanted to t ry to get a search
warra nt to sea rch the v ehi cle. The of

f i cers di d n ot att em pt to ge t a s ea r ch wa rr an t be ca us e A da ms bel ie ved th at th ey h ad prob ab l e c au se

to search the v

ehi cl e as an e xcepti on to the search wa

rrant rule. Ad ams ac kn

owl edge d that i

t wa s n ot odd f orsomeone t o be ou t in the T aft Ho mes at 3: 30 in t he morni ng. Pri or to t he se ar ch o f the vehicle, Adams d id no t inform t he two sub j ects th at they were being detain

ed. A da m s f el t th at th e of f i cersh ad suf f i ci en t groun dsto detain the two subj ects because th e two su

b j ects had be en se en in the imm ediat e ar ea o f wher e t he shootin g ha d occurr ed an d were t he o nly ind ividua ls o ut in th at a re a a t th e ti me. A da m s f el t th at th ey cou l d deta i n th e s ub j ects to determ i ne i f they were sus pects , vi cti m s, or wi tnes ses to the sh ootin g. Af ter Adam s testif ie d, no additional

evi dence was

presented. Defe

ndan t argued that he was subj ectedto an i

ll egal sei zure and that any

evi dence t ha t wa s r ec o ve r ed aft er t ha t se izu r e s ho uld be suppressed. The S tate

argued that defen

dant la cked standi

ng to contest a search of

Thomas ’s vehi

cl e.7

Alt er na t ive ly, the State

ass erted that the e

nc ounter started as a vol untary one, that def

endan t was reasonab ly

det ained, and t hat t he o ffi cer s had pr oba ble cau se t o s ear ch T homas ’s vehicle. Af te r hear ingt he initial ar gument s, t he t rial judg e no t ed t hat he did no t believe t hat t her e wa s su ffi cient pr o ba ble ca

us e to jus tif y a search of the veh ic le . The trial

judge to ok t he m

atter unde r a dvisement to consi der f urthe r the i ssue of stan di ng. The case was conti

nued to another

date f or fu rther h eari ng on the m atter. The

parties w ere giv en an o ppo rt unit y to pr ese nt cas e law a nd add itio nal arg ument s o n t he is sue of standi ng. Af ter hear ingt he add itio nal arg ument s o f the par t ies, t he t rial judg e de nied t he mot ion t o s upp re ss t he gu n, finding t ha t de fen da nt lac ke d s t an din g t o ch alle ng e a se ar ch o f T ho mas ’s ve hic le. I n a nno un cin g h is ruli ng, the trial

judge noted that he would hav e granted a m

o t ion t o q uas h and s upp re ss as t o t he
se arch of th e v eh i cl e i f i t h ad b een b rough t b y Thom as , ra th er th an de f en da n t. Defend ant su bse qu en t ly

fil ed a mot ion t o s upp re ss his st at ement s t o p olice. A hear ingwas he ld on t he mot ion. At t he hea ring, t he pa rt ies ask ed t he trial judge to consider the evi

dence that was presented at the previ ous heari

ng on the m otion to suppre ss th

e gun . No addi

tional evi dence was presented. In his argum

ent, defen se counsel represented that after the gun was f ound in the veh ic le , defend ant was taken

t o t he police station and i nterro gated. Al

thou gh i n the written motion defense counsel alle ged that defen

dant’s statemen

ts to police were i

nvol untary, def

ense couns el

did not raise that argumen

t in h is oralcomm

ents to t he trial

court . Rather, defense counsel re iter at ed t he ar gument that he had m

ade to the tr ial

cour t o n the motion to suppress t he gun. Defense counsel asserted that after t he po lice learne d de fendant ’s ident ity, his p ur po se fo r be ing in the ar ea, and t hat he had no
o ut st an din g warrants, the stop should hav e been over and def

endan t should h ave b een al

lowed t o le ave. Defens e co uns el

asserted further that the detention of de fen dant bey ond that point was an8

il le gal seizu re and that t he sub sequent i nterrogat ion of

defen dant was the resul

t o f that ill egal sei zure and sh oul d be suppress ed. Af ter cons i deri

ng th e argu men ts of th e parti es, the tri al

j udge f ound th at once the of f i cers dis covered

the g un i n Th omas’ s vehi cle, t hr ou gh

a s ea rc h wh i ch de f en da n t h ad n o l eg al ab i l i ty to con test, t he o ffi

cer s had pr oba ble cau se t o a rr est defend ant . T he t rial judg e r uled t hat t he continue d detent ion of def

endant was pro per and denied def endant’s motion to sup press stat emen ts. Af ter the motions

had b een resol

ved, t he ca se p ro cee ded t o t rial. D efenda nt waived his right to a j ur y trial an d th e p ar ti es proce eded

b y wa y of a sti pul ate d b en

ch tr ial
. Of imp o r t an ce t o t his ap pe al, as part of the stipul ation, i t was represented

t o t he trial

judge that defenda

nt, after bei

ng taken to t he po lice st at io n, wa ive d h is righ ts and gave a

n oral an d v i de otap ed sta tem en t. In th at state men t, defend ant ad mit t ed t ha t he ha d s ho t t he vic t im and sa id tha t he di d s o be ca us e the v i cti m f l i nc he d or made a move t ow ar d his wa ist a nd de fendant feared that the vi ctim ma y h ave h ad a gun or a knife. Defend ant stat ed in

hi s stat emen

t t hat he was only

tryin g to sh oot in

the a i r t o fr igh t en t he vic t im
aw ay. Lab testi

ng th at was co nduc t ed o n fou r sp ent cas ings fou nd at t he sc ene o f the sho ot ing in dic ated that t he casi

ngs were al

l f ired from the gun f ound in Thomas ’s vehi

cl e. Th e v

i cti m di d n ot ha ve a g ood re co llectio n of t he in

ci dent but remem

bered be in

g approached by

a bl ack m al e subj ect in the alle y, tryi ng to run away, an

d bei ng sh ot in the back
. T he vic t im

spe nt ove r a mont h in the hospi taland h ad several

surgeries to repair the dam

age done to hi s i

nternal organs. Addi

tional evi dence wa s presented

tha t de f en da nt h ad pre vi ous l y be en con vi cte d of the f el ony of f ense of unl awf ul posse ssi on of a con troll ed subs tanc e. At the conclusi on of the s tipulated bench trial , defen

dant was f

ound guil ty of al l three offenses. The

parties a greed to a sen tenc i ng c ap of 18 y ears in the Departmen

t o f Corrections as to9

co unt I of t he indict ment. Fo llowing a s ent encing heari ng, def endan t was sentenced to a term of 12 years ’ impriso nment fo r a ggr avat ed ba t t er y with a fire ar m and t wo t er ms of 7 yea rs’ impriso nment for aggravated

un l aw f ul us e of a w ea pon an d un l aw f ul pos se ss i on of

a w ea pon by a f el on, al l of t he sentence s t o run concurrentl y. Def endan t file d a m

ot ion to reconsi der sentence, wh ic h was subse quently

deni ed. Thi s appeal

followed.

AN AL YSIS On appeal , defen

dant argues fi

rst t hat the trial

cour t err ed in

deny in g hi s motion to suppress t he gun and his motion to suppress his st at ement s t o p olice. Defend ant do es no t co nt est t hat t he po lice init ially

h ad re as on ab l e s

us pi ci on to m ake a v al i d i n v esti ga tory sto p of de f en da n t pu rsua n t to Terry v. Oh io , 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968). Rather, defen dant asserts that he was sub

je cted to an un

la wful arrest or a prolonged

de ten ti on when the police off

ic ers han dcuff ed him an d pl ac ed hi m i n th e b ac k of a s qua d c ar priorto searchi

ng Thom as’s v ehi cl e. Defe ndan t not es that upun

ti l th at p oi n t, thepol ice had ver ifi

ed d efenda nt ’s ident ifi

cat ion, que st ioned defend ant re gar ding hi s reason f

or bein g in the area, confi

rmed that there wer e no out sta nd i ng wa rra nts f or defendant’s arres t, de term i ne d that there

wa s n othi ng i l l eg al on d ef en da nt’ s p ers on, an

d had not witne ssed an y su sp i ci ousbe ha vi or on the pa rt of defen dant. Defen

dant asserts further that

the search of Tho mas’s ve hicle, t he r eco ver y of t he gu n, a nd t he t aking of def en da nt ’s st at eme nt s w er e a ll “f ruits” of the ill

egal sei zure of def

endan t and should have been

suppressed. Defe

ndan t contends that t he tria l court’s anal y si s reg ardi

ng d ef endan t’s stand i ng to con test a s earch of T ho mas ’s ve hic le misses t he po int o f defend ant ’s lega l arg ument , t hat t he se ar ch o f the vehicle and t he findingof t he gun were “frui

ts” o f an il legal seizure of def

endant’s person and that standing to co ntest a s ea rch of10

t he veh ic le , therefore, was i

rrelev a nt. In the al

ternative, def

endan t contends that even if the tri al
cou rt ’s standi

ng an al ys is was correct, defendan

t’s statements to police

stil l s hould h ave b een su pp re ss ed as a “ f ru i t” of th e i l l eg al se izu reof de f en da n t. The State argues that the tri al court’s rul i ngs den y i ng d ef endan t’s m otion s to suppress

are correct an d s ho uld be affir med
. Sp ec ific al ly , t he St at e a ss er t s t ha t de fen da nt lac ks a r ea so na ble
ex pe cta ti on of pri vacy in T ho mas ’s ve hic le and can not, t heref

ore, chall enge a se arch of the v

ehi cl e. The St ate assert s further that defendant’s arrest and subs equent statements are a proper re sult of t he pr o ba ble cause t hat ar ose fro m the fi nding of the gun in the passenger area o f Thomas’s veh ic le
. In t he alte rna t ive, t he St at e as ser t s first t hat t he pr olo nged det ent ion o f defend ant and t he se ar ch o f the
ve hic le f orweap ons were pr

oper un der Terry , an d s ec ond , th at e ve

n i f the de ten ti on of def endan t was impr o pe r ly

prolonged, the fi

ndi ng an d confronti

ng of def enda nt wit h t he gu n t ha t wa s p r o pe r ly
recovered f

rom T hom as’ s vehi cle atten

uated th e tai nt of the i m proper pr olon ged deten tion
. A reviewi ng court applies a two-part standard of revi ewt o a t rial co ur t ’s r uling o n a moti on to suppress

evi den ce. Ornelas v. Un

ited States , 517 U.S. 690, 699, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911, 920, 116 S. Ct. 165 7, 1 663 (19 96) ; Peo ple v. Lue demann , 222 Il l . 2d 530 , 542, 8 57 N.E .2d 187 , 195 (2 006). The trial court ’s f in din gs of fact are given

great deference and wi

ll not be reversed o n appeal un less they are a gai nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. Lue demann , 222 Ill . 2d at 542, 857 N.E.2d at 1 95. A defer ent ia

l s tandard of revi

ew applie s to t he trial

court ’s f in din gs of f act because the tri al courth as th e op por tun i ty t o o bser ve t he de meano r a nd t est imony of t he witnesses f irsthand and, thus, is in a better position than

th e rev i ewi n g c our t to judg e t he wit nesse s’ cr edibility, t o d et er mine the weight to be

gi ve n to te sti mony , to de ci dethe i nf ere nc esto b e dr awn f

rom th e ev i den ce , a

n d to
re so lveany

confl icts in the evi dence. See Peo ple v. Jones , 215 Ill . 2d261, 268, 830 N.E. 2d 541, 5481 For the most part, t he search and sei zure provisi

on of the Illi

nois Constitution h

as been i nte rprete d i n a man ne r th at i s c ons i stent w

i th th e ru l i ng s of the Un i ted State s S upr

em e C ourt on fou rt h amendment issues . T hus, we w ill only re fer t o t he fo ur t h amendment t hro ugho ut t he r ema ind er o f t his a pp ea l. 11 (20 05) ; Pe o ple v. Frazi

er , 248 Il l . Ap p. 3d 6, 1 3, 617 N .E.2d 826 , 832 (1 993). Ho weve r, as t o t he trial cour t’s ultim

ate legal rul

in g of whether reaso nabl

e suspici on or pro babl

e cause exi sts an d wh ethe r sup pres sion i s wa

rran ted, de novo revi ew ap

pli es. Lue demann , 222 Ill . 2d at 542-43, 857 N.E.2d at 195 -96 ; Peop l e v . Sore ns on , 196 Ill . 2d 425, 431, 752 N.E.2d 1 078, 10 83 (20 01). The
re viewing cour t is free to make its own assessm ent of tho se l eg al

i ss ue s, b as ed

upon the f i nd i ng s of fact, and to draw its own concl usi ons. See Lue demann , 222 Ill . 2d at 542, 857 N. E.2d at 195. In t he p re se nt ca se , w e ne ed o nly ad dr es s w het her t he s ea rc h o f T homas ’s vehi cle was a proper li mi ted pro tective sea

rch und er Terry , sinc e t ha t de t er minat io n is di sposi tiv e of the issue b ef

ore t his cou rt. Th e f ourth am en dm en t to the Un i ted State s C ons

ti tution and a rt icle I, sec t ion 6 , o f the Ill in ois Constitut ion, provide prot ection against unreasonable searches

and sei zures. 1 U.S. Const.,
am en d. IV; Il l . C on st. 1970, a

rt. I, §6; People v . Pitma

n , 211 Ill . 2d 502, 513, 813 N.E .2d 93, 101 (2004 ). One ty

pe of poli ce-ci tizen encounter that does n ot co n sti tute an unreasonable seizure i s a bri ef i nv esti gati ve deten tion or Terry stop. Lue demann , 222 Ill . 2dat 544, 857 N.E.2d at 196. Pu rsu ant to Terry

and Il li nois la w, an off ic ermay, wit hou t violat ing t he fourth am endm ent, conduct
a br ief inv es t ig at o ry stop o r det ent ion o f an individual when t he o ffi cer has r eas ona ble susp icion, based o n sp ec ific articulabl

e fac ts and the reasonab le

in feren ces to be drawn

therefrom , to bel

ie ve that t he in div idua l h as comm itted or is ab out to comm

i t a cri me. Terry

, 392 U.S. at 20-23, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 905-0 7, 88 S. Ct. at 1879-8 1; 7 25 IL CS 5/1 07–14 (We st 2006 ). An of f i cer m ak i ng a p rope r i nv es ti ga tory stopma y c onduct a l

i m i ted prote cti ve se arc h or fri sk12

of the indivi dual’s oute r cl

othi ng f orwe ap o ns if t he o ffice rr ea so na bly be lieve s t ha t t he ind ividua l is armed and p re sent ly danger ou s t o t he offi cer or ot hers. Terry

, 392 U.S. at 27, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 909, 88 S. Ct . at 188 3; Sorens on , 196 Ill . 2d at 432, 752 N. E.2d at 1084; 725 ILCS 5/108– 1.01 ( West 2006)
. Th e p urp ose

of a l i m i ted prote cti ve se arc h i s to p rotect the

of f i cer’ s s af ety an d the s af ety of othersin the area, not t o gat her ev i den ce of a cri me. Sorens on , 196 Ill . 2d at 432, 752 N. E.2d at 1084. If a protective se arch exceeds that purpose, it is n o longer j ustif

ia ble and an ythi ng recovered bey ond that point wil

l b e suppressed as

a “fru it” o f the ill

ega l sear ch. Sorens on , 196 Ill . 2d at 432, 752 N.E.2d at 1084. The test for whether a prot ective search i s proper is an

o bje ct ive o ne : w o uld
a reasonabl y pruden t person under

t he circ umst ance s believe t ha t his s afe t y o rt he sa fet y o f o t he r s is i n da nge r. Sorens on , 196 Ill . 2d at 433, 752 N. E.2d at 1084. In Michigan v. Lo ng , 463 U.S. 1032, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1201, 103 S. Ct. 3469 (1983), t he Un ited St ate ’s Supreme C ourt extended the Terry protecti v e s ea rc h ru l e to al l owa p ro t ec t ive s ea rc h o f a passen ger com partm en t o f a v ehi cl e when the off ic er reasonabl

y b elie ved that the occupant was da ng er o us an d c o uld ga in i m medi atecon

trol of a weapon. See Lo ng , 463 U.S. at 1049, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 1220, 103 S. Ct. at 3481. In so doing, th e s up re m e c ourt noted th at the j ustif

i cation f or a prot ective search

of a veh ic le is not t aken away

merely beca use t he po lice officer cur re nt ly has the suspect’s m

ovem ent under contro l. See Lo ng , 463 U.S. at 1051- 52, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 1221-22, 103 S. Ct. at 3482 . A Terry

stop places an

off ic er in cl ose range to a suspect, without the prot ections that
areno rmally

av ail ab l e wh

en a su spe ct i s un

der f ull cus todia l arrest. Lo ng , 463 U.S. at 1052, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 1221-22, 103 S. Ct. at 3482. A suspect m ay try to retr i eve a we ap on f rom hi s c l othi ng or try to br ea k a wa y fro m t he po lice o ffice r ’s co nt r o l an d r et r iev e a we ap o n fr o m his vehi cle. Lo ng , 463 U.S. at 105 1, 77 L . E d. 2d a t 122 1, 103 S. Ct . a t 348 2. In a ddit ion, if t he su sp ec t is not ar re st ed, he2 Fo r t he pu rp os es o f this ap pea l, we need not det er mine when exa ct ly during t he

enco unt er defend ant was det ained. Su ffi ce it t o s ay, a t so me po int d ur ing t he enc ou nt er , t he i nte racti on b etw een d

ef en da nt a nd the pol i ceof f i cers ros e to the l

evel of a detenti on or stop pursuan t to Terry . 13 ma y return to hi s veh ic le and m ay gai n acces s to any weapon l

ocated i ns i de. Lo ng , 463 U.S. at 1051- 52, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 1221, 103 S. Ct. at 3482. Under those circum stances, an

off ic er wil l b e allowed to take reasonable steps to prot ect hi s or her saf ety an d the saf ety of others. See Lo ng , 463 U.S. at 1052 n.16, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 1222 n.16, 103 S. Ct. at 3482 n.16
. As wi th all prot ective searche s allowed und er Terry , a prot ective search of

a passen ger compartmen

t o f a v ehi cl e i s lim ited to those
areas wh ere a

weap on coul

d be place d or hi

dden
. Lo ng , 463 U.S. at 1052 n.16, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 1222 n.16 , 103 S. Ct. at 3482 n .16. In the present case, defen

dant concedes, and we agree, that t he polic e o ffice r s ha d r ea so na ble
su sp i ci on t o co ndu ct a br ief Terry

sto p of de f en da n t. 2 See Pe o ple v. Lee , 48 Ill . 2d 272, 276-77, 269 N.E. 2d 48 8, 4 91 (1 97 1) (of

f i cersh ad re as on ab l e s

us pi ci on to ma ke a Terry stopon de f

endan ts where off i cers le arned previ

ously of a possi ble gang war

in t he ir patro l a rea, heard shots i

n that area at about 9:30 p.m., saw def

endan ts and three other young m en ab out two min

utes later wa lkin g o n a sid ew alk about two b l ock s a

wa y f rom wher e t he sho t s we re hear d, saw no one el se i n the v ic in ity, and saw that four of the y oung me n we r e w ea r in g t he t ype o f he ad ge ar wo rn by t he ga ng t ha t wa s p o ss ibly in volv ed in the a nt icipat ed g ang war ); People v . Basi ak , 50 Ill . App. 3d 155, 157-58, 365 N.E .2d 570, 572 (1977 ) (off

i cers had reasonable

suspici on to ma

ke a Terry stop on de f

endan t where off

i cers he ard
a gunsh ot come f rom around the corner

o f t he ir c ur r en t lo ca t io n, immed iat ely s aw de fen da nt an d h is
com pa ni on i n th at a re a, an d s aw n o other v eh i cl es or p er son

s i n th at a re a a t th at t ime ). Thu s, t he
na rrow qu es t io n be fo r e t his c o ur t is whether a polic e off ic er, who has re aso nable su spicio n t o be lieve14

that an individual wa s involved in a sho ot ingt hat has just oc cur re d, may cond uct a limi t ed p ro t ect ive search of the passen

ger compartmen

t o f a v ehi cl e that the offi

cer hasjus

t seen the i

ndi vi dual get out o f. We find t ha t un de rt ho se cir cu ms tan ce s, c on sist ent wit h Terry and Il li nois la w, a li mi ted pr ot ect ivesearch

of the pa ss en ge r com pa rtm en t of the ve hi cl e f orweapons i s proper. See Lo ng , 463 U.S. at 1 049, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 122 0, 1 03 S . Ct . at 348 1; Sorens on , 196 Ill . 2d at 439-41, 752 N.E.2d at 108 8-8 9; Pe o ple v. Starks , 19 0 I ll. A pp . 3d 50 3, 50 9, 54 6 N
. E . 2d 71 , 76 ( 19 89 )
. T hu s, we rule that t he sea rch of Th omas’ s vehi cle was

a proper protecti ve sea rch und er Terry an d th at th e tr ia l courtwas correct in den yi ng def endan t’s motion to suppress the gun. No evi dence h as been presented t o s ugg est t hat t he se ar ch o f the veh ic le that was conducted in

this case exceeded the scope of a l im ited protecti

ve sea rch
. We reject defenda

nt’s argum

ent that the search was the resul t o f an il le gal sei zure. Defend ant concedes that t he i

ni tial detention was proper, and we do not ag re e wi th de f en da n t’s as se rti on th at, at so me po int p rio r t o t he se ar ch, defen dant should have been

released. Al

though bri

ef i n n ature, a Terry sto p may last f or areas onab l e dura

tion whi l e the off i cer i nv olv ed attem pts to di spe l

or conf i rm his suspici ons. See Starks , 190 Ill . App. 3d at 509, 546 N.E .2d at 76. This case i nvol ved a confi rmed rep ort of a shooting that had j ust occurred about two houses down from where defendant was f irst
see n. The testim

ony of Off ic er Hanl ey and Li eutenant Adam

s establ is hed that defe

ndan t and Thomas
were t he o nly p eo ple out in

the area at t hat t ime (just aft er 3 a. m.), t hat none of t he bus inesses in the
area were open, that defenda

nt and Thom

as had gi ven vague re sponses t o Officer Hanley ’s questions, and that defenda

nt and Thom

as had seem ed nervous ab out the enti

re encounter. Defen

dant presented no evi dence to rebut or contradict the testim ony on those m

atter s. At the tim

e that Off ic er Hanl ey searched the v

ehi cl e, although h

e had confi rmed def endan t’s ide ntif ic ation an d had determi

ned that15

t her e we re no wa

rra n ts f or de f en da nt’ s a rre st or a ny thi ng i l l eg al on d ef en da nt’ s p ers on, he

ha d n ot ye t dispe lled or co nfirmed hi s s us pi ci on s on whether def endan t was in volv ed i n the sh oot in g. Theref ore, Hanl ey could b rief ly detain defen dant longer

in att empt to dispel

or co nf irm those suspici ons, as l ong a s the peri od of deten

tion was not un reas onab l e. See Starks , 19 0 I ll. App. 3d at 509, 546 N.E.2d at 76. We note that in the tri al court , defen

dant presented

no evi dence whatsoever
re gar ding the duration of def endan t’s encounter wi

th the poli

ce from the t ime tha t Off

ic er Hanl ey spoke to de f

en da nt i n th e p ark i ng l ot un t il t he t ime that t he vehi cl e was search

ed. Thus, we can draw
no c onc lusion a s t o w het her t his st op was a lengt hy one o r o f an unr eas ona ble dur at ion. Nor do we f i nd th at the proper Terry

st o p c o nd uc t ed in

this case was el

evated to an il

le gal arrest when the of

fi cers han dcuff ed defen dant bef ore t hey searched Th

omas’ s veh

ic le
. Hand cuffing of a suspect, alone , may

not convert a Terry

stop into an arres t, depe

ndi ng on the c i rcum stan ces . See Pe o ple v. Wa dd ell , 190 Ill . App. 3d 914, 926-28, 546 N .E.2d 106 8, 1075 -76 (19 89) ( Terry stop last ing15 to 20 mi

nutes of def

endan t suspected of

be i ng i nvol ve d i

n p oss es si

on of dru gswa s n ot converted in to an arrest where

seve n of f i cers pa rtici pa ted i n th e s top of defen dant’s vehi

cl e, asked t he occupants to exi

t t he vehi cl e, handc uff ed and pat-searched def

endan t, and secured

de fen da nt in a squad car

whi le conductin

g a search of t he vehicle pursu ant to defendant ’s co nsent ); Starks , 190 Ill . App. 3d at 508-10, 546 N.E .2d at 75-77 ( Terry stop lastin

g 10 mi nutes of def

endan t suspected of comm ittin g armed r obbe ry was not co nver t ed int o a n ar re st wher e po lice officer s st op ped t he
ve hic le defend ant was riding i n , ord ered de f en da n t an d th e oth er occ up an ts of t he vehicle o ut of t he vehicle at gunp oint , ha ndcu ffed de fendant and th e oth er occ up an ts of t he vehicle, and s ear ched t he passen ger compartmen

t o f the v ehi cl e for weapons). It would ma ke no sens e under the l

awt o g ra nt
an o ffice rt he au t ho r it y t o pr o pe r ly de t ain an individual pu rsu ant t o a n invest igat or y sto p and yet d eny16

t he off ic er the use of f

orce necess ary to carry out that det ention i n a saf e and ef fecti ve m ann er. See Pe opl e v . Rob er

ts , 96 Ill . App. 3d 930, 934, 422 N.E.2d 154, 157 (19 81) ; Starks , 190 Ill . App. 3d at 509, 546 N.E.2d at 76. “The real dif feren ce bet wee n an invest igat or y sto p and an ar re st lies in the l en gth o f t ime t he su sp ec t is det ained a nd t he sc op e o f the invest igat ion which fo llows t he in itial stop. [Ci tation .] T he ge ne r al r ule is t ha t t he o ffice r ’s su sp icio ns mu st be alla yed in a r ea so na ble t ime; if they are n ot, th e of f i cer m us t al l ow th e p er son to le ave or ma

ke a ful l a rrest.” Starks , 190 Ill . App. 3d at 50 9, 546 N .E.2d at 76
. Here, as noted above, defendan t pr esented no evidence i

n the trial court to establi sh th e l en gth of the part icul

ar po li ce-citizen en

count er in the prese nt ca se. Thus, bas ed on the l ack of that i nf orm ati on and t he o t her fact s co nt ained in t he r eco rd , w e ca n only co nclude t hat t he i nv esti gatory stopof defendan

t was not unreasonable an d did not rise to the le

vel of an arrest whe

n defen dant was han dcuff ed and pl ac ed i n th e b ac k of the sq ua d c ar. Th e s ea

rch of Thomas ’s

ve hi cl e f orweapons was proper und

er Terry based on the facts of this c ase. Once O ffi cer Hanley fou nd t he gu n unde r t he pas seng er ar ea o f the vehicle, he had probabl e cause to arrest defendan t, whom he h

ad seen riding in that area of the veh

ic le only a few mom ents earlie r. See Peo ple v. Gher na , 203 Ill . 2d 165, 176, 784 N.E.2d 799, 806 (2 003 ) ( pr oba ble cau se e xists when t he fact s and circu msta nces kno wn t o t he
ar re st ing of f i cer are suf

f i ci en t to ca us e a rea son ab l e p ers on

to bel ie ve that the arrested in

div idua l h as com m i tted an off en se). Having re ache d t hat co nclusio n, w e nee d no t ru le upo n whet her defend ant ha s sta n di n g to co nt est a se ar ch o f Tho mas’s ve hicle since eve n if defenda nt has standin g to contest t he search, we have al re ad y deter m i n ed th at th e dete n ti on of de f en da n t, the se arc h of t he vehicle, and t he su bseq uent arrest al l were proper. It

follow s, t her efo re , t hat t he gun and def endan t’s statem en ts to poli ce we re17

not the prod uc t of an i l l eg al se izu re of defendan t. Therefore, d efendan

t’s motion to suppress the gun and h is motion to suppress hi

s statemen

ts to police were properly deni ed. As h i s f i n al poi n t of con ten ti on on appe al, de f

en da n t ar gu es , a n d th e S tate concede s, that defendant’s convi

ctions f or unlawf ul posses si on of a weapon b y a fel on (UPWF) an

d aggravated
un l aw f ul us e of a w ea pon (A UU W) are b oth prem

i se d up on th

e s am e p hy si cal ac t an d c an not b oth st and under one-act, one-crim e prin ci ple s. The parties di

sagree, however , as to wh i ch con vi cti on sho uld be vac at ed. Defend ant asse rt s t hat UP WF is the more seri ous offense , d esp ite it s low er felony classificat ion, be ca us e it is sub j ect to a hi

ghe r m axi m um pri son ter m . Defe ndan t subm its, theref ore, that hi s convi

ction f or AUUW, as the l

ess seri ous offen s e, should b e vacated unde r one-act, o necr ime prin ci ple s. The State asserts t hat AUUW is the more seri

ous offen se i n thi s case b ecause i

t has
a hi gher f el ony c lassifi

cation, a Cl

ass 2 f el ony as opposed to a Class 3 f elony ; has a

hi gher m in im um sentence , three ye ars as opposedto two; and has a h igh er period of m

andatory superv

is ed rele ase, two yea rsas opp ose d to on

e. The S tate

subm its, the refo re, tha t d efendant ’s co nviction for UPWF, as the less seri

ous o ff ense, should be v

acated under one-act , one-cr im e princi ples. The appl i ca ti on of the one -act, on e-c

ri me ru l e i s a que sti on of l aw su bj ec t to de novo review on ap pe al. P eo pl e v . Bo yd , 307 Ill . App. 3d 991, 998, 719 N.E. 2d 306, 311 (1999). It is well s ettled that a de fend ant may no t be co nvic t ed o f mult iple o ffen se s t ha t ar e b as ed up o n p r ec ise ly t he sa me si ngl e ph y sical act. Peo ple v. King , 66 Ill . 2d 551, 566, 363 N.E .2d 838, 844 -45 (19 77) ; Peo ple v. Rodriguez , 169 Ill . 2d 183, 186, 661 N.E .2d 305 , 30 6 (1 996 ). W

he n a de f en da nt i s c onv i cte d of two off enses based upon the s am

e si ngle phy si cal act, t he court must vacate the le ss seri ous off ense. Pe o ple v. Lee , 213 Ill . 2d 218, 226-27, 821 N. E.2d 307, 31 2 ( 20 04 )
. T he r ela t ive se r io us ne ss o f all off enses i s determ i ne d by the l egi slature. Lee , 21 3 I ll. 2d at 228, 821 N. E. 2d a t 313 . T o d et er mine3 All r efe r en ce s t o AU UW an d U PW F s ha ll be t o t ho se o ffen se s a s t he y we r e c ha r ge d in

this case. 18 whi ch of two of

f en ses i s the l ess seri ous, a c ourt mu st cons i der t he in tent of the legi

slature as expresse d i n th e p l ai n l an gua geof the statutes i

nv olv ed. Lee , 213 Ill . 2d at 227, 821 N. E.2d at 312. As o ur su pr eme co ur t ex pr es se d in Lee , co mmo n se nse ind ica t es t ha t t he leg isla t ur e w ill provide a greater pun

i sh men t for th e cri

me i t deem s to be m ore ser i ous. Lee , 213 Ill . 2d at 228, 821 N.E.2d at 313. We sta

rt ou r a n al y sis of th i s iss ue wi th t he st at ut es in qu est ion. As to AUUW, section 24–1.6 of the Crim in al Code of 1961 (the Code) pr ovid es in pe rt inent p ar t t hat a violat ion o f the st at ut e “by
a pe r so n w ho ha s be en pr ev io us ly con vi cte d of a f el ony i n th i s S tateor an

othe r j urisd i cti on is a Cl ass 2 f elony f or whi ch the p erson

shal l be sen tenc ed to a term

of i m pri sonm en t of n ot les s tha n 3 y ears and not m ore than 7 y

ears.” 720 ILCS 5/24–1.6(d) (West 2006). Sect ion 24–1.1 of the Code, as to UPWF, pr o vid es in p er t ine nt pa r t t ha t “[ v] io lat io n o f t his [ s] ec t io n by a person not confi ned i n a pen al i ns ti tution sha ll be a C las s 3 felo ny fo rwh ich t he pe r so n, if se nt en ce d t o a t er m o f impr iso nme nt , sha ll be sente nc ed to n o less tha

n 2 yea rs and no more than 10 years.” 720 ILCS 5 /24–1. 1(e) ( West 2006)
. As a Cl

ass 2 felony, A

UU W as ch

arged in this case i s subj ect to a m

andatory superv

is ed release(MSR) term of two years. 730 IL CS 5/5–8–1(d)(2) (West 2006). Whereas, UPWF as charged as a Cl ass 3 f el ony i n thi s case is su

bj ect t o a MSR t erm of one y ear. 730 ILCS 5/5–8 –1(d)(3 ) (We st 2006 ). Having co nsidered all of the abo ve in the pr esent case, we co nclude t hat UPWF, as charged in this case, i s the less seri

ous offen se and s hould b e vacated. 3 UP WF was given a lowe r felo ny cl assifi cation b y the le gis la ture, was madea pr oba t ionable o ffense by the legislat ur e, and was m ade19

subj ect t o a sho rt er per iod of MS R by the legi slature’s class if

ication of i

t as a Class 3 fel

ony. See 720 ILCS 5/24– 1.1(e) (We st 2006 ); 73 0 ILC S 5/5– 8–1(d ) (We st 2006 ). By

contrast, AUUW

was gi ven a hi gher fel ony c lassifi

cation b y the le gis la ture, was made a n

onprobationabl

e off ense, was given a h i gh er m i n i m um se n ten ce of i m pri son men t, a n d w as made s ub j ect to a l ong er p eri

od of MSR. 720 ILCS 5/24–1.6(d) (W

est 2006); 730 ILCS 5/5 –8–1(d) (West 2006). Since bot h of the of fen ses in volv ed aris e from

the co mmi

ssio n of t he sa me single physical ac t , d efenda nt ’s co nvictio n and sentence for the l ess seri

ous offen se, UP WF, mus t be vacated. See Lee , 213 Ill . 2d at 226-27, 821 N.E.2d a t 312. We recog ni

ze that our conclusion on t hi s iss ue is contrary to the recent d ecisi on of the First Dis trictAppe llate C ou rt in People v . Martinez , No. 1

– 06– 148 2 (O ctob er 3 1, 2 008 ). W e do not dispute that the de ci si on in Martin ezinvolves t he sa me exac t offense s as t hos e involved in the p re sent ca se an d th at Martin ezi s d i rectl y on point wi th the is sue presented here. See Martin ez , sli p op. at 19. We do not agre e, however, wit h t he co nclusio n re ache d in Martin ezan d n o t e t ha t no an alys is is presented to suppor t t he appel la te court ’s concl

usi on in that case. See Martin

ez , sli p op. at 19. We al so recognize that

our c onc l us i on i s a rguab l y con trar y to porti ons of the anal ys is adopted by t he Second Di strict

Appe llate C ou rt in People v . Gan carz , 369 Ill . App. 3d 154, 859 N.E.2d 1127 (2006 ), aff

’d i n part & rev’ d in

part o n other grounds , 228 Ill . 2d 312, 888 N.E.2d 48 (2008). In that case, whi ch i nvol ved diff erent off enses than wh at we are f

ac ed wi th h ere, th e a

pp el l ate co ur t fou nd that t he f el on y wi th the lower cl

assifi cation was a

ctuall y the more seri ous offen se. See Gan

carz , 369 I ll. Ap p. 3d a t 179-80, 8 59 N.E.2 d at 115 1. In r eac hingt hat co nclusio n, t he ap pellat e co ur t cite d t he
commonsense rule fr o m Lee , which st re sses t he impor t ance of fo cus ing o n t he po t ent ial punishment available for eac h cr ime in dete rmining wh ich cr ime is

the more seri

ous offen se. See Gan

carz , 36920

I ll. App. 3d at 180, 859 N.E. 2d at 1151, citin g Lee , 213 Il

l. 2d at 228, 820 N.E.2d at 313. Af ter set t ingfor t h t he r ule in Lee , t he ap pellat e co ur t in Gan carz adde d i ts own in terpret ation to t hat rule, stating that the f

ocus of t he in

quiry should be on the m

axi mum sentence avai la ble for each

off ense, not the c l ass i f

i cation attach

ed. See Gan

carz , 369 Il l. A

pp. 3d at 180, 859 N. E.2d at 1151. No
au th ori ty is p r o vid ed in

supp ort of tha

t statem en t. See Gan

carz , 369 Ill . App. 3d at 180, 859 N.E.2d at 1151
. We do not agr ee w ith t hat st at ement in Gan carz an d b elie ve t ha t it de via t es fr o m t he rule setfor t h in Lee . We no t e t hat in Lee , the f el on y th at w as su b j ected to a higher level of p unishment and was deter mi

ned to be the more serious offens e was also the f el ony wi th th e h i gher c l as si

f i ca ti on le vel . See Lee , 213 Il

l . 2d at 22 8, 821 N .E.2d at 31 3. Ult imat ely, a cour t facin

g this i ssue must

deter mi ne f rom the legi slati

ve i ntent which off

ense t he le gis la ture deemed to be m

ore serious. See Lee , 213 Ill . 2d at 227-28, 821 N.E.2d at 312-13. In our opi n i on , the c l ea

re st i n di ca ti on of th e le gis latu re ’s int ent re gar ding t he se rio usne ss o f the offense is the cl

assif ication l evel assign ed to the offense b

y the l egisl atur e. This i s not a de vi

ati on f rom t he co mmonsens e r ule se t for t h in Leesi nce, gen erall y s peaki ng, each hi gher level of off ense h as a hi gher sen tenci ng range a

tt ached to it. See

730 IL CS 5/5 –8–1 (We st 2006 ). A c o ur t , o bvi o us ly, wi ll have to go bey

ond that point when

the two o ff

enses in volv ed i n the i nqui ry h ave the sa

me cl as si f i ca ti on lev el. Un de rsu ch cir cu mst an ce s, a c o ur t sho uld ca r efu lly co nsid er all indicat ions o f the leg isla tu re’s int en t , no t mer ely t he po r t io n o f t he st at ut e t ha t se t s fo r t h t he max imum t er m o f i m pri son men t. Su ch fac t o r s a s t he minimum a nd max imum s en t en ce s a va ila ble and whet her t he offense i s p rob ati

ona bl e or no np r o ba t io na ble should be consi dered. See Tow n & Country Util ities , Inc. v . Il l i

noi s Pol l uti on Con

trol B oard , 225 Il

l . 2d 103 , 117, 86 6 N.E.2d 227, 23 5 (200 7) (i

n inter pr et inga statute, t

he words an d phrases of

a statut e should not be construed in is olation, b

ut21

rathe r, sh oul d be i nterpreted i

n l i ght of al l of the other r

elev an t provi sions of

the statute). For t he f ore go ing r ea so ns, we affir m t he jud gme nt s o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f Pe o r ia Cou n ty denying de fen da nt ’s mo t io n t o su pp r es s t he gu n a nd de nying de fen da nt ’s mo ti on to sup pr es s his sta tem en ts to police. We v

acate defen

dant’s conv

iction and s entence f

or unlawf ul po ss es sio n o f a
we ap on by a felon and re mand

t his case t o t he circ uit co ur t t o a mend t he se nt encing order t o reflect that the con vi cti on a nd sente nc e f or un l aw f ul pos se ss i on of

a w ea pon by a f el on have been

vacated. Af fi rmed i n part and vacated in

part ; case reman

ded with directions. WRIGHT, J. concurrin

g. JUSTICE SCHMIDT, special ly concurrin

g: I c on cu r i n th e j udgm

en t.