What Does It Mean To Be An “Armed Habitual Criminal” In Illinois?

People v. Neal: Illinois Court Examines Constructive Possession in a Firearm Case

When police find a firearm in a bedroom that does not belong to the defendant, prosecutors may still pursue a conviction if the evidence establishes that the defendant knowingly possessed and controlled the weapon.

Illinois has especially serious consequences for certain people with prior felony convictions who are later found in possession of a firearm. For offenses committed under the former armed habitual criminal statute, the State had to prove that the defendant possessed a firearm after having been convicted of at least two qualifying offenses.

Effective January 1, 2025, Illinois changed the name of the offense in 720 ILCS 5/24-1.7 to unlawful possession of a firearm by a repeat felony offender. The statute continues to make the offense a Class X felony.

The case discussed in this article, People v. Neal, involved a firearm discovered underneath a pillow in a bedroom. The defendant argued that the State had not established that the gun belonged to him because the bedroom belonged to someone else.

The Illinois Appellate Court for the First District rejected that argument and affirmed the conviction and eight-year sentence. The court concluded that the testimony and surrounding circumstances provided sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant constructively possessed the firearm.

Important:
Constructive possession does not mean that merely being near a firearm is enough for a conviction. Illinois law generally requires proof that the defendant knew the firearm was present and exercised immediate and exclusive control over the area where the firearm was found.

What Is an Armed Habitual Criminal Charge?

At the time of the conduct discussed in the original case, Illinois law referred to the offense as armed habitual criminal.

Under the current version of 720 ILCS 5/24-1.7, a person commits unlawful possession of a firearm by a repeat felony offender when the person receives, sells, possesses, or transfers a firearm after having been convicted at least twice of qualifying offenses listed in the statute.

Those qualifying offenses include forcible felonies, certain firearm and weapons offenses, specified other felonies, and qualifying violations of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act or Cannabis Control Act.

The offense is classified as a Class X felony. Under 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-25, a Class X felony carries a sentence of 6 to 30 years in prison, with an extended-term range of 30 to 60 years in qualifying circumstances. Probation or conditional discharge is not an authorized disposition for a Class X felony.

Qualifying Convictions

The defendant must have the required prior qualifying convictions identified in section 24-1.7.

Firearm

The State must prove that the defendant received, sold, possessed, or transferred the firearm.

Class X Felony

A conviction under section 24-1.7 is a Class X felony carrying a 6-to-30-year imprisonment range.

The Police Were Called About a Man With a Firearm

The case began when police responded to a report that a man with a firearm was inside a residence.

When officers entered the home, they encountered two women sitting at a table. One of the women spoke with the officers while they investigated the report.

Officers then proceeded toward a closed bedroom door.

An officer announced his presence and attempted to make contact with anyone inside the bedroom. According to the officer’s testimony, nobody responded to the announcement.

The officer then heard a sound that he believed was consistent with someone racking a firearm.

Because of the possibility that someone inside the room was armed, the officer waited for additional officers before entering the bedroom.

The significance of the sound:
The officer’s testimony about hearing what sounded like a firearm being racked was part of the broader circumstantial evidence concerning whether a firearm was in the defendant’s possession before officers entered the room.

A Man and Several Children Were Inside the Bedroom

Once backup arrived, officers entered the bedroom and encountered the defendant and several children.

The defendant was lying on the bed. His head was resting on a pillow, and his hands were positioned beneath his head and under the pillow.

Officers arrested the defendant.

During the arrest, a pillow moved or fell from the bed, revealing a hooded sweatshirt underneath it.

An officer picked up the sweatshirt and discovered a loaded firearm.

Where the Firearm Was Found

The firearm was not found in the defendant’s hand. It was found concealed beneath a pillow and inside or beneath a hooded sweatshirt on the bed where the defendant had been lying.

The Defendant Had Two Prior Qualifying Convictions

The defendant’s two prior qualifying convictions were not disputed at trial. The record identified convictions from 2003 and 2004 that satisfied the predicate-conviction requirement for the firearm offense.

Because those convictions were established, the central issue for the jury was the remaining element: whether the defendant possessed the firearm.

This distinction was important. The State did not need to prove every element of the prior offenses again. Instead, the prior qualifying convictions established the predicate portion of the firearm charge, leaving possession as the primary factual dispute.

The Issue at Trial

Prior convictions: Established.

Firearm possession: Disputed.

The Bedroom Did Not Belong to the Defendant

The defendant argued that the firearm could not be attributed to him because the home and bedroom belonged to another person.

That person was one of the women officers encountered when they first entered the residence.

The defense argued that because the bedroom was not the defendant’s home, there was no sufficient evidence demonstrating that he had control over the gun.

The defense also challenged the credibility of the woman who testified against him. According to the defense, she had a potential motive to lie because of jealousy related to the defendant’s relationship with another woman.

The jury was therefore asked to decide whether the circumstances supported the State’s claim that the defendant knew about the firearm and exercised control over it, or whether the weapon could have belonged to someone else.

What Is Constructive Possession?

Illinois recognizes both actual possession and constructive possession.

Actual possession generally exists when a person has the firearm on his or her person or has immediate physical possession of it.

Constructive possession is different. A firearm does not have to be in the defendant’s hand. Instead, the State may attempt to establish that the defendant knew the firearm was present and exercised immediate and exclusive control over the area where the firearm was found.

The Illinois Supreme Court has described those as the two essential components of constructive possession: knowledge and control. Current Illinois appellate decisions continue to apply that framework in firearm cases.

Knowledge

The State must establish that the defendant knew the firearm was present.

Control

The State must establish immediate and exclusive control over the area where the firearm was found.

Circumstantial Evidence

Knowledge and control are frequently established through surrounding circumstances rather than direct evidence.

The State Did Not Need to Prove the Defendant Owned the Gun

One important distinction in a constructive-possession case is the difference between ownership and possession.

The State does not necessarily have to prove that a defendant purchased the firearm, legally owned it, or had the firearm registered in his name.

Instead, the prosecution must establish the elements of possession beyond a reasonable doubt. Ownership may be evidence of possession in some circumstances, but it is not necessarily a required element of constructive possession.

In a case involving a firearm discovered in someone else’s home, the location of the weapon is therefore only one part of the analysis. Courts may consider the defendant’s conduct, statements, relationship to the premises, access to the area, proximity to the firearm, and other surrounding circumstances.

The Woman’s Testimony Was Important to the State’s Case

One of the women who spoke with police testified that she knew the defendant and that he had come to the home earlier that morning.

She testified that the defendant threatened her with a firearm.

Her testimony provided the jury with evidence that connected the defendant to a firearm before officers discovered the loaded weapon under the pillow.

The defense challenged her credibility and argued that her relationship with the defendant gave her a motive to fabricate the accusation.

The jury nevertheless credited her testimony and found the defendant guilty.

Credibility is generally a jury question:
When witnesses give conflicting accounts, appellate courts generally do not retry those credibility disputes. The reviewing court instead asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational fact finder could have found the required elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Jury Found Constructive Possession

After hearing the testimony, the jury concluded that the State had proved the defendant possessed the firearm.

The evidence supporting that conclusion included the officer’s account of the report of a man with a firearm, the sound officers heard before entering the bedroom, the defendant’s position on the bed with his hands beneath his head and near the concealed weapon, the loaded firearm’s location beneath the pillow and sweatshirt, and the woman’s testimony that the defendant had threatened her with a firearm earlier that day.

The prosecution therefore presented a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence rather than relying solely on the fact that the gun happened to be located inside another person’s bedroom.

The Defendant Was Sentenced to Eight Years

The jury convicted the defendant of the firearm offense, and the trial court imposed an eight-year prison sentence.

The defendant appealed, arguing that the State had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the firearm.

The appeal therefore focused on the sufficiency of the evidence rather than whether the prior qualifying convictions existed.

How an Illinois Appellate Court Reviews Sufficiency of the Evidence

When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court does not retry the defendant or substitute its own judgment for that of the jury.

Instead, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The question is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the required elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

This means that an appellate court can affirm a conviction even when the defense identifies competing interpretations of the evidence, so long as the State’s interpretation is reasonably supported by the record.

View in State’s Favor

The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

Rational Fact Finder

The question is whether a rational jury could reach the finding of guilt.

No Retrial of Credibility

The appellate court generally does not substitute its credibility judgments for those of the jury.

Why the First District Affirmed the Conviction

The First District concluded that the State presented sufficient evidence to establish constructive possession.

The court considered the defendant’s physical position in the bedroom, the firearm’s location, the testimony concerning the defendant’s earlier possession and use of a firearm, and the officer’s observations.

Although the defense presented an alternative explanation—that the firearm belonged to the woman who owned the house—the jury was not required to accept that explanation.

The existence of competing inferences does not necessarily mean that the evidence is legally insufficient. The question on appeal is whether the State’s inference of possession was rationally supported by the evidence.

The Appellate Court’s Conclusion

The First District concluded that the testimony of the police officer and the woman who identified the defendant’s earlier firearm possession, considered together with the location of the loaded firearm, was sufficient for the jury to find constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

Constructive Possession Does Not Mean “Near a Gun = Guilty”

This distinction is important when discussing Illinois firearm prosecutions.

Current Illinois decisions continue to require both knowledge and control for constructive possession. A firearm’s mere proximity to a defendant is not automatically enough to prove the offense.

For example, the First District has recently explained that when a firearm is found near a passenger in a vehicle, the State still must establish that the passenger knew the weapon was present and exercised immediate and exclusive control over the area where the firearm was found.

Knowledge may be proven through circumstantial evidence, including a defendant’s acts, statements, or conduct from which knowledge can reasonably be inferred.

What the State Still Has to Prove

Knowledge: The defendant knew the firearm was there.

Control: The defendant exercised immediate and exclusive control over the area where the firearm was found.

The Current Name of the Offense

Illinois changed the terminology surrounding this offense effective January 1, 2025.

Section 24-1.7 is now titled unlawful possession of a firearm by a repeat felony offender. The statute’s current text provides that a person commits the offense by receiving, selling, possessing, or transferring a firearm after having been convicted at least twice of the qualifying offenses listed in the statute.

Older cases, including the case discussed in this article, may continue to use the former term armed habitual criminal because that was the name of the offense when the defendant was charged and convicted.

Former vs. Current Terminology

Former terminology: Armed habitual criminal.

Current statutory title: Unlawful possession of a firearm by a repeat felony offender.

The Current Penalty for a Class X Firearm Offense

Under current Illinois sentencing law, a Class X felony carries a prison sentence of 6 to 30 years. The statute also provides an extended-term range of 30 to 60 years when the requirements for an extended-term sentence are satisfied.

Illinois law does not permit a sentence of probation or conditional discharge for a Class X felony.

The exact sentence in an individual case depends on the applicable sentencing statutes, the facts of the offense, the defendant’s criminal history, and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances presented to the court.

What People v. Neal Means for Illinois Firearm Cases

People v. Neal demonstrates why the State does not necessarily need to recover a firearm directly from a defendant’s hand to pursue a firearm-possession conviction.

At the same time, constructive possession is not automatic. The prosecution must still establish the defendant’s knowledge of the firearm and control over the area where the firearm was found.

In a shared home, bedroom, vehicle, or other location where multiple people have access to the firearm, the circumstances connecting the defendant to the weapon can become especially important.

Witness testimony, statements attributed to the defendant, the location and concealment of the firearm, access to the area, the defendant’s conduct, and other circumstantial evidence can all affect whether the State has met its burden.

Practical point:
A defendant does not have to be holding a firearm when police arrive for the State to pursue a constructive-possession theory. But the prosecution still must prove the required elements beyond a reasonable doubt rather than relying on proximity alone.

Why Prior Convictions Matter So Much

A firearm possession allegation can carry substantially greater consequences when the defendant has the qualifying criminal history required by section 24-1.7.

This makes the predicate convictions an important part of the case. The defense may need to examine whether the prior convictions actually qualify under the statutory language, whether the State has sufficient records establishing them, and whether the current evidence proves the required firearm possession.

The prosecution must establish each element required by the statute. A defendant’s criminal history does not eliminate the State’s burden of proving the current firearm-possession offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

A Note About This Decision

The case discussed in the original article was presented as a First District appellate decision involving an eight-year sentence. The source supplied with the original article is the Google Scholar case record. Because that source is not directly accessible through the public web interface used to verify the case, the case-specific facts above follow the supplied source material rather than adding an unverified appellate citation.

The statutory information in this updated article has been checked against the current Illinois General Assembly provisions, including the January 1, 2025 change in terminology for section 24-1.7.

Talk to an Illinois Weapons Crimes Defense Lawyer

A firearm-possession charge can become significantly more serious when the accused has qualifying prior convictions. Constructive possession cases can also involve difficult questions about who knew a firearm was present, who controlled the area where it was found, and whether the evidence actually connects the defendant to the weapon.

Patel Law, PC represents Illinois residents facing firearm and weapons charges. Our attorneys can review the alleged possession, the location where the firearm was found, the evidence concerning constructive possession, and the defendant’s prior convictions.

Contact our Champaign weapons crimes lawyers to discuss your case and the legal options available to you.

217-384-1111

Visit Our Website