People v. Gray

2025 IL App (1st) 191086-B · Appellate Court of Illinois, First District · March 14, 2025 · No. 1-19-1086

Summary

This is an Illinois Appellate Court opinion affirming the conviction of Demetrius Gray for being an armed habitual criminal and multiple gun offenses. The court addresses challenges to the constitutionality of the AHC statute under the Second Amendment, the trial court's refusal to accept a guilty plea, alleged improper admission of hearsay and other crimes evidence, and the length of the sentence. Finding no reversible error, the court upholds the nine-year prison sentence.

Court
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
Writing for the Court
C.A. Walker; Hyman; Gamrath
Jurisdiction
Illinois
Decision date
March 14, 2025
Docket number
1-19-1086
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County affirming conviction for armed habitual criminal and related offenses.
Standard of review
De novo for constitutional challenges; abuse of discretion for plea‑acceptance and sentencing issues.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Demetrius Gray v. People of the State of Illinois
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

second amendmentcriminal procedureevidenceappellate jurisdiction

Practice areas

criminal law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Illinois armed habitual criminal statute is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Gray.
  2. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by refusing to accept Gray’s guilty plea.
  3. Whether the jury’s consideration of certain testimony constituted improper admission of hearsay and other‑crimes evidence, violating Gray’s right to a fair trial.
  4. Whether Gray’s nine‑year sentence was excessive or the result of an abuse of discretion.

Holdings

  1. The AHC statute is not unconstitutional either facially or as applied to Gray; felons are presumptively excluded from Second Amendment protection and Illinois constitutional analysis yields the same result.
  2. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the plea because Gray’s willingness to plead was not voluntary.
  3. The admission of the officers’ statements was not erroneous, and the admission of the detective’s testimony was error but not plain error; thus, no reversible error.
  4. The sentence was within the statutory range and not an abuse of discretion; the appellate court will not disturb the sentencing judgment.

Key quotations

We find no clear or obvious error with the testimony of Moctezuma and Moore because their statements explained why they approached Gray in the car; thus, Gray fails to establish plain error. (¶36)
We find it was clear error to admit Kamien’s testimony. The fact that Gray had been arrested for aggravated assault did not form a part of the ongoing sequence of events leading to his AHC charge, meaning Kamien’s testimony was not closely connected to the charge, nor did it clarify an element of the charge because the mention of Gray’s arrest for aggravated battery was irrelevant in connection with his AHC charge. (¶40)

Factual background

On June 10, 2016 police stopped a vehicle after a woman flagged them. Officers observed Gray reaching into the glove compartment and found a handgun, leading to his arrest. Gray later claimed he had found the gun earlier and intended to turn it in for cash. The State offered plea deals which Gray rejected before ultimately accepting a six‑year recommendation, which the circuit court later refused to accept.

Procedural history

The circuit court convicted Gray of an armed habitual criminal (AHC) offense and multiple gun offenses, sentencing him to nine years. Gray appealed, raising constitutional challenges to the AHC statute, arguing the trial court erred in refusing his guilty plea, contending improper admission of hearsay and other‑crimes evidence, and asserting the sentence was excessive. The Illinois Supreme Court previously remanded the AHC issue, and this appellate panel considered the remaining claims.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…