People v. Huff

2025 IL App (4th) 240762

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: April 4, 2025
• Docket: 4-24-0762
• Status: Published

Opinion

2025 IL App (4th) 240762 FILED April 4, 2025 NO. 4-24-0762 Carla Bender 4th District Appellate IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Peoria County DANA JAMAL HUFF, ) No. 24CF4 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) John P. Vespa, ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE LANNERD delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Doherty and Grischow concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION ¶1 On April 18, 2024, defendant, Dana Jamal Huff, pleaded guilty to unlawful

possession of a weapon by a felon (UPWF) (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2022)). Pursuant to a

negotiated plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to 2½ years’ imprisonment.

Following the sentencing hearing, defendant did not file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Instead, defendant filed a pro se “Motion for Notice of Appeal” on May 6, 2024. On appeal,

defendant argues the UPWF statute is facially unconstitutional. We affirm.

¶2 I. BACKGROUND

¶3 Based on the scope of defendant’s appeal, a lengthy discussion of the facts of the

case is not required. Therefore, we include only the facts necessary to address defendant’s

contention on appeal. ¶4 In January 2024, the State charged defendant with UPWF (id.). Following

defendant’s arrest, the State filed a verified petition to deny defendant pretrial release pursuant to

section 110-6.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1 (West 2022)),

hereinafter as amended by Public Act 101-652, § 10-255, 102-1104, § 70 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023),

commonly known as the Pretrial Fairness Act. Following a detention hearing, the trial court

ordered defendant detained pretrial.

¶5 On April 18, 2024, defendant pleaded guilty to UPWF and, pursuant to an

agreement with the State, was sentenced to 2½ years’ imprisonment. After accepting defendant’s

guilty plea, the trial court admonished defendant of his appeal rights in accordance with Illinois

Supreme Court Rule 605(c) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024). Following the court’s admonishment, defendant

indicated he understood his appeal rights.

¶6 Despite the trial court’s admonishments, defendant did not file a motion to

withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024).

Instead, defendant filed a pro se “Motion for Notice of Appeal” on May 6, 2024. The pro se notice

of appeal cited Illinois Supreme Court Rule 606(d) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024) and Rule 303(b)(5) (eff.

July 1, 2017) and stated, “Defendants [sic] conviction was unconstitutional under the 2nd and 14th

amendmant [sic] of the United States Constitution.” The circuit clerk filed defendant’s notice of

appeal on May 15, 2024.

¶7 This appeal follows.

¶8 II. ANALYSIS

¶9 On appeal, defendant argues the UPWF statute is facially unconstitutional based on

“the Second Amendment analysis announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen,

597 U.S. 1 (2022).” At the outset, the State contends defendant’s appeal must be dismissed based

-2- on his failure to first file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea in the trial court pursuant to Rule

604(d). Defendant concedes his failure to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea but asserts a

facial constitutional challenge may be raised at any time.

¶ 10 Rule 604(d) states, in pertinent part:

“No appeal from a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty shall be taken unless the

defendant, within 30 days of the date on which sentence is imposed, files in the trial

court a motion to reconsider the sentence, if only the sentence is being challenged,

or, if the plea is being challenged, a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate

the judgment.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024).

Our supreme court, in People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291, 300-01 (2003), determined, based on the

plain language of Rule 604(d), “[t]he filing of a Rule 604(d) motion is a condition precedent to an

appeal from a judgment on a plea of guilty.” Although the failure to file a Rule 604(d) motion does

not divest this court of jurisdiction, it prohibits us from evaluating the merits of the defendant’s

appeal and requires us to dismiss the appeal. Id. at 301. According to the court in Flowers, “Where

a defendant has failed to file a written motion to withdraw his plea of guilty or to reconsider his

sentence, the appellate court must dismiss the appeal [citation], leaving the Post-Conviction

Hearing Act as the defendant’s only recourse.” Id.

¶ 11 Defendant acknowledges our supreme court’s decision in Flowers but contends it

is inapplicable to his case because Flowers did not involve a facial constitutional challenge. We

agree.

¶ 12 Before and after its decision in Flowers, our supreme court has, on multiple

occasions, held, “A defendant may argue that a criminal statute is unconstitutional, and void

ab initio, at any time.” People v. Guevara, 216 Ill. 2d 533, 542 (2005); see In re N.G., 2018 IL

-3- 121939, ¶ 43 (stating “a judgment based on a statute that is facially unconstitutional is void,” and

void judgments may be attacked at any time). Moreover, as our supreme court has noted, “[A]

challenge to a final judgment based on a facially unconstitutional statute that is void ab initio” may

be raised at any time and is not subject to forfeiture. People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶ 32.

Even when a defendant has pleaded guilty, he is not precluded “from arguing on appeal that he

was sentenced under a statute that was facially unconstitutional and void ab initio.” Guevara, 216

Ill. 2d at 542-43. This is because “[w]hen a statute is declared facially unconstitutional and void

ab initio, it means that the statute was constitutionally infirm from the moment of its enactment

and, therefore, unenforceable.” Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶ 32.

¶ 13 In this case, because defendant raises a facial constitutional challenge, his failure

to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Rule 604(d) does not preclude this court

from addressing his constitutional challenge on direct appeal. As the court stated in N.G., 2018 IL

121939, ¶ 57:

“Simply put, under Illinois law, there is no fixed procedural mechanism or

forum, nor is there any temporal limitation governing when a void ab initio

challenge may be asserted. [Citation.] Under our precedent, it is sufficient if a

person subject to a conviction premised on a facially invalid statute raises his or her

challenge through an appropriate pleading in a court possessing jurisdiction over

the parties and the case. [Citation.] Indeed, if the constitutional infirmity is put in

issue during a proceeding that is pending before a court, the court has an

independent duty to vacate the void judgment and may do so sua sponte.

[Citations.] A void order may be attacked at any time in any court. [Citation.] Such

challenges are not subject to forfeiture [citation] or any other ordinary procedural

-4- bar.”

Recently, the First District, relying on the precedent set forth in Guevara, reached the same

conclusion, namely, that it was not precluded from addressing a defendant’s facial constitutional

challenge despite the defendant’s failure to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Rule

604(d). People v. Richardson, 2024 IL App (1st) 221508-U. Similarly, we conclude a facial

constitutional challenge is an exception to the general rule set forth in Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d at 301,

that “[w]here a defendant has failed to file a written motion to withdraw his plea of guilty or to

reconsider his sentence, the appellate court must dismiss the appeal [citation], leaving the Post-

Conviction Hearing Act as the defendant’s only recourse.” Accordingly, we hold defendant’s

failure to comply with Rule 604(d) does not bar him from raising his facial constitutional challenge

on direct appeal. We now turn to the merits of his appeal.

¶ 14 “Statutes are presumed constitutional, and to rebut that presumption, the party

challenging a statute’s constitutionality has the burden of establishing a clear violation.” People v.

Bochenek, 2021 IL 125889, ¶ 10. “The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law subject to

de novo review.” People v. Gray, 2017 IL 120958, ¶ 57.

¶ 15 Defendant challenges the facial constitutionality of the UPWF statute. “A party

bringing a facial challenge to a statute faces a particularly heavy burden.” People v. Villareal, 2023

IL 127318, ¶ 14. “A statute will be deemed facially unconstitutional only if there is no set of

circumstances under which the statute would be valid.” Bochenek, 2021 IL 125889, ¶ 10. “If it is

reasonably possible to construe the statute in a way that preserves its constitutionality, we must do

so.” Id.

¶ 16 This court has already determined the UPWF statute is facially constitutional in

People v. Burns, 2024 IL App (4th) 230428 (holding felons do not fall within the scope of New

-5- York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)). Defendant makes the same argument

here that this court rejected in Burns. The defendant in Burns argued the UPWF statute was

unconstitutional under Bruen because the State could not establish the UPWF statute “is consistent

with the United States’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Burns, 2024 IL App (4th)

230428, ¶ 16. We rejected this argument, holding Bruen did not apply to that defendant because

Bruen only applied to law-abiding citizens and, based on his status as a felon, the defendant was

not a law-abiding citizen. Id. ¶ 21. We need not repeat that analysis here, as it is clearly set forth

in Burns. Defendant acknowledges this court’s decision in Burns but requests we reconsider our

decision. We decline to do so. Moreover, this court has reaffirmed our decision in Burns on

numerous occasions. See People v. Pruitte, 2024 IL App (4th) 240013-U; People v. Dillard, 2024

IL App (4th) 231090-U; People v. Bruce, 2025 IL App (4th) 240706-U; People v. Stokich, 2024

IL App (4th) 240192-U; People v. Mallery, 2024 IL App (4th) 231397-U.

¶ 17 In requesting this court reconsider our decision in Burns, defendant relies on the

United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024).

We find Rahimi inapplicable to defendant’s case. The Court in Rahimi did not address whether

felons could be prohibited from possessing firearms based on their status as felons. The sole issue

in Rahimi was whether the defendant could be temporarily prohibited from possessing firearms

based on a domestic violence restraining order, which found he posed “a credible threat to the

physical safety of [an] intimate partner.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 684-86. (We

note the opinion in Rahimi does not state whether the defendant was a convicted felon.) In fact,

the only mention of felons in the majority’s opinion is when the Court reiterated its prior statement

from District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), regarding the presumptive lawfulness

of prohibitions against felons possessing firearms. See Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 682 (“Indeed, Heller

-6- stated that many such prohibitions, like those on the possession of firearms by ‘felons and the

mentally ill,’ are ‘presumptively lawful.’ ” (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-627 n.26)).

Defendant’s reliance on Rahimi is misplaced, and there is nothing in Rahimi that requires this court

to reconsider its decision in Burns. Therefore, in accordance with our decision in Burns, we reject

defendant’s argument regarding the facial constitutionality of the UPWF statute.

¶ 18 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 19 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

¶ 20 Affirmed.

-7- People v. Huff, 2025 IL App (4th) 240762

Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria County, No. 24-CF-4; the Hon. John P. Vespa, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Manuela Hernandez, of for State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant. Appellant:

Attorneys Jodi M. Hoos, State’s Attorney, of Peoria (Patrick Delfino and for David J. Robinson, of counsel, and Lindsey J. Aden, law student, Appellee: of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office), for the People.

-8-