Summary
This Illinois Appellate Court opinion addresses Omar Lopez’s appeal following his convictions for being an armed habitual criminal, unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. The court vacates the latter two convictions under the one-act, one-crime doctrine because they arose from the possession of a single firearm, while affirming the armed habitual criminal conviction. The court also rejects Lopez’s facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges to the relevant statutes under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, holding that such restrictions on felons fall outside the amendment’s scope and remain consistent with historical tradition.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the one‑act, one‑crime doctrine requires vacating Lopez’s convictions for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.
- Whether the armed habitual criminal statute is facially or as‑applied unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as interpreted in Bruen.
- Whether Lopez’s prior convictions for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon are void for being based on facially unconstitutional statutes.
- Whether the ten‑year sentence for the armed habitual criminal conviction is excessive or an abuse of discretion.
- Whether the trial court’s comment on Lopez’s silence at allocution constitutes an improper negative inference.
Holdings
- The convictions for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon are vacated; the armed habitual criminal conviction is affirmed.
- The statute is facially and as‑applied constitutional; the conviction stands.
- The prior convictions for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon remain valid.
- The sentence is within the statutory range and not an abuse of discretion; the sentence is affirmed.
- No reversible error; the comment was not a basis for sentencing and therefore does not constitute an improper factor.
Key quotations
“Following a trial, a jury found defendant Omar U Lopez, also known as Omar Lopez, guilty of being an armed habitual criminal, unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, and two counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.” (¶1)
“Under the one‑act, one‑crime doctrine “a criminal defendant may not be convicted of multiple offenses when those offenses are all based on precisely the same physical act.”” (¶14)
Factual background
During an incident on April 17, 2022, Lopez was shot at while sitting at a gas station in Chicago. He returned fire, fled, and was later detained after a neighbor discovered a firearm near the scene. The State proved possession of the firearm and Lopez’s prior felony convictions. The jury convicted him of being an armed habitual criminal, unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, and two counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.
Procedural history
The trial court convicted Lopez of four firearms offenses and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. Lopez appealed, challenging the convictions under the one‑act, one‑crime doctrine, the constitutionality of the armed habitual criminal statute, the validity of prior convictions, the length of his sentence, and a claimed negative inference from his silence at allocution.
Remand instructions
Vacate the convictions for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon; direct the clerk of the circuit court to correct Lopez’s mittimus accordingly.