Defendant, age 19 at time of offenses, was arrested after he ran from police, through residential back yards, carrying a gun. He was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and possession of a controlled substance. Enough information was known to the officers to support Defendant's arrest, and thus he cannot have been prejudiced by counsel's failure to litigate motion to suppress. Defendant made general assertion that a 19-year-old's brain is more similar to a 17-year-old adolescent's brain rather than a fully mature adult's, but failed to provide any evidence indicating how his own immaturity or individual circumstances would provide a compelling reason to allow him to file a successive postconviction petition. Discrepancies in officers' testimony do not reach severity to conclude that State failed to prove Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Officer's testimony is enough to prove the gun he saw Defendant holding met the statutory definition of a firearm. (WALKER and GRIFFIN, concurring.)
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Weapons