Defendant Charged with Being an Armed Habitual Criminal & Battery with a Firearm
An Illinois appellate case examined what happens when two convictions arise from the same physical act but were entered as part of a fully negotiated guilty plea.
In People v. Perkins, 2023 IL App (5th) 220423-U, the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court considered whether Antonio R. Perkins could have one of his convictions vacated under Illinois’ one-act, one-crime doctrine after he entered a fully negotiated guilty plea.
Perkins had been charged with aggravated battery with a firearm, unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, and armed habitual criminal. He ultimately pleaded guilty to the latter two offenses in exchange for consecutive prison sentences and dismissal of the aggravated battery charge. The State agreed on appeal that the two convictions arose from the same physical act, but the appellate majority held that Perkins could not simply keep the benefits of his negotiated plea while changing one of its material terms.
The case later returned to the appellate court. In a March 9, 2026 decision, the Fifth District reversed the dismissal of a later post-conviction petition because post-conviction counsel failed to provide the reasonable assistance required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 651(c). The court remanded for new second-stage post-conviction proceedings with new counsel and leave to amend the petition.
Quick Answer
The 2023 appellate decision did not vacate Perkins’ unlawful-possession conviction even though the court agreed that the two convictions were based on the same act. Because the convictions and sentences were material parts of a fully negotiated plea agreement, the court held that the available remedy was withdrawal of the plea rather than simply deleting one conviction. Perkins had not requested withdrawal of the plea as his appellate remedy. In 2026, however, the Fifth District reversed the dismissal of his post-conviction petition because post-conviction counsel failed to adequately present his claim under Rule 651(c), sending the case back for new second-stage proceedings.
The Charges Against Antonio Perkins
On December 4, 2018, the State charged Perkins in Madison County following an incident in which a handgun was discharged and another man, David Cox, was injured.
The first count charged aggravated battery with a firearm under 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(e)(1), a Class X felony under the law applicable at the time of the offense.
The second count charged unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon under 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a), which was a Class 2 felony under the version of the statute applicable to Perkins’ case.
The third count charged armed habitual criminal under 720 ILCS 5/24-1.7(a), a Class X felony.
Aggravated Battery
Aggravated battery with a firearm was charged as a Class X felony and was later dismissed as part of the negotiated plea.
Weapon Possession
Unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon was charged under section 24-1.1 and was a Class 2 felony under the law applicable to this case.
Armed Habitual Criminal
The armed habitual criminal charge was a Class X felony based on the statutory requirements in section 24-1.7.
Perkins Represented Himself During the Guilty Plea
Perkins proceeded pro se, meaning he represented himself, when he entered his guilty plea. The trial court admonished him under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402(a), found that his plea was knowing and voluntary, and accepted the negotiated agreement.
Under the agreement, Perkins pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon and armed habitual criminal. The State agreed to dismiss the aggravated battery with a firearm charge and another unrelated case.
The agreed sentence consisted of 10 years in prison for unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, to be served at 50 percent, followed consecutively by six years for armed habitual criminal, to be served at 85 percent.
YEARS
Combined Consecutive Sentences
The negotiated agreement called for consecutive terms of 10 years for unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon and six years for armed habitual criminal.
The One-Act, One-Crime Issue
Illinois’ one-act, one-crime doctrine generally prohibits multiple convictions when they are based on the same physical act. The Illinois Supreme Court has explained that courts first determine whether the defendant’s conduct consisted of a single physical act or multiple acts. If there was only one act, multiple convictions based on that same act are generally impermissible.
The doctrine is important because a defendant can face multiple charges arising from the same incident, but the law may prohibit multiple convictions when those convictions are based on one physical act. The analysis depends on the particular offenses and the conduct supporting each conviction.
Identify the Conduct
A court first determines whether the defendant committed one physical act or multiple physical acts.
Compare the Convictions
If multiple convictions arise from the same physical act, the one-act, one-crime doctrine may prohibit the multiple convictions.
Determine the Remedy
The appropriate remedy can depend on whether the convictions resulted from a negotiated plea and what relief the defendant actually requests.
The State Agreed the Convictions Were Based on One Act
On direct appeal, both sides agreed that Perkins’ convictions for unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon and armed habitual criminal were based on the same physical act: his possession of a single handgun during the November 29, 2018 altercation.
The appellate court agreed with that factual and legal premise. The court explained that both charging instruments and the factual basis for the guilty plea established that the two convictions rested on possession of the same handgun during the same incident.
Ordinarily, a violation of the one-act, one-crime doctrine requires the court to vacate all but the most serious offense. The unusual issue in Perkins was the fact that both convictions were part of a fully negotiated plea agreement.
The Key Question Was the Remedy
The appellate court did not disagree that the two convictions were based on the same act. The dispute concerned what the court could do after Perkins had entered a fully negotiated guilty plea and received benefits from that agreement.
Why the Negotiated Plea Changed the Analysis
Illinois courts treat a fully negotiated guilty plea, in part, according to contract-law principles. Both sides make concessions as part of the agreement, and courts generally seek to preserve the benefit of the bargain for both parties.
In Perkins’ case, the State made concessions by dismissing the aggravated battery with a firearm charge and another case. In exchange, Perkins pleaded guilty to the two remaining offenses and accepted the agreed consecutive sentences.
The Fifth District concluded that allowing Perkins to keep the benefits of the negotiated plea while simply deleting one of the convictions would improperly modify a material term of the agreement.
State’s Concessions
The State agreed to dismiss the aggravated battery with a firearm charge and an unrelated case.
Defendant’s Agreement
Perkins pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon and armed habitual criminal and accepted consecutive sentences of 10 and six years.
The Available Remedy on Direct Appeal
The Fifth District concluded that the appropriate remedy for challenging a material term of a fully negotiated plea was to withdraw the guilty plea and return the parties to the position they occupied before the agreement.
Perkins, however, asked the appellate court only to vacate his unlawful-possession conviction and corresponding sentence. He did not ask to withdraw the negotiated guilty plea and return the case to its pre-plea status.
Because vacating only one conviction would allow Perkins to retain the benefits of the bargain while eliminating one of its material terms, the majority held that he was not entitled to the relief he requested.
2023 Appellate Result
The Fifth District affirmed the convictions and sentences because the negotiated plea agreement precluded Perkins from receiving the specific relief he requested on direct appeal.
The 2023 Decision Was Not the End of the Case
The litigation did not end with the 2023 appellate decision. Perkins later pursued post-conviction relief and again raised the one-act, one-crime issue, along with a claim that post-plea counsel had been ineffective for failing to properly present that issue in the proceedings concerning withdrawal of his guilty plea.
In March 2026, the Fifth District issued another decision in People v. Perkins, 2026 IL App (5th) 250033-U.
The 2026 court did not simply vacate the unlawful-possession conviction. Instead, it held that post-conviction counsel had provided unreasonable assistance by failing to amend the petition adequately to avoid procedural default and present the defendant’s constitutional claims in proper form.
2026 Update
The Fifth District reversed the dismissal of Perkins’ post-conviction petition and remanded for new second-stage proceedings after appointment of new post-conviction counsel, with leave to amend the petition. The court did not itself vacate the conviction on that appeal.
Why Post-Conviction Counsel Became Important
Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 651(c), appointed post-conviction counsel must consult with the defendant to ascertain the defendant’s constitutional claims, examine the record of the proceedings, and make amendments to the petition necessary for an adequate presentation of those claims.
In the 2026 decision, the Fifth District concluded that Perkins’ post-conviction counsel failed to make the necessary amendments to overcome a procedural bar. In particular, counsel did not adequately allege that appellate counsel had been ineffective for failing to raise the one-act, one-crime issue on direct appeal.
That distinction mattered because the one-act, one-crime argument itself had already been addressed in the earlier direct appeal. A later post-conviction petition could not simply relitigate the same issue without addressing the procedural consequences of the earlier decision.
Consultation
Post-conviction counsel must consult with the defendant to understand the constitutional claims being asserted.
Record Review
Counsel must examine the record of the trial and other relevant proceedings.
Necessary Amendments
Counsel must amend the petition when necessary to adequately present the defendant’s constitutional claims and address procedural barriers.
The 2026 Court Did Not Revisit the 2023 Holding
The 2026 Fifth District expressly treated the earlier 2023 decision as controlling under the law-of-the-case doctrine. The court therefore declined to simply vacate Perkins’ unlawful-possession conviction even though the State continued to agree that the convictions arose from the same act.
Instead, the 2026 court focused on whether Perkins had received the reasonable assistance required from post-conviction counsel. Because counsel had failed to comply with Rule 651(c), the court reversed and remanded for new second-stage proceedings.
This means that the current status of the litigation is more nuanced than the original 2023 article suggested. The 2023 direct appeal did not vacate either conviction, while the 2026 post-conviction appeal also did not directly vacate the conviction. The most recent appellate ruling sent the case back for additional post-conviction proceedings.
AFFIRMED
REMANDED
Current Procedural Posture
The 2023 direct appeal affirmed the negotiated convictions and sentences. The 2026 post-conviction appeal reversed the dismissal of Perkins’ petition and remanded for new second-stage proceedings with new counsel.
One-Act, One-Crime and Plea Bargains in Illinois
People v. Perkins, 2023 IL App (5th) 220423-U illustrates why a one-act, one-crime issue can become more complicated when a defendant resolves a criminal case through a negotiated plea.
A defendant may have a potentially valid one-act, one-crime argument but still face limitations on the remedy available after accepting a fully negotiated plea. The court may consider whether the requested relief would allow one party to keep the benefits of an agreement while eliminating a material term of that same agreement.
The 2026 decision adds another layer: even when a direct appeal has already addressed the underlying one-act, one-crime issue, a defendant may still raise a separate constitutional claim concerning the performance of post-conviction counsel, provided the statutory and procedural requirements for post-conviction relief are satisfied.
Talk to a Decatur, IL Criminal Defense Attorney Today
Criminal cases involving negotiated guilty pleas can raise complicated questions about the charges dismissed as part of the agreement, agreed sentences, constitutional rights, and the remedies available after a conviction.
Patel Law, PC represents defendants charged with serious crimes and defendants pursuing criminal appeals and post-conviction relief. Our Decatur criminal defense lawyers can review the history of your case and explain the legal issues that may affect your plea, conviction, sentence, or post-conviction petition.
Contact Patel Law, PC to schedule a consultation regarding your Illinois criminal case.
Call Patel Law, PC
Learn More About Patel Law, PC
Sources
People v. Perkins, 2023 IL App (5th) 220423-U — Illinois Appellate Court Opinion
People v. Perkins, 2026 IL App (5th) 250033-U — Illinois Appellate Court Opinion
720 ILCS 5/24-1.1 — Unlawful Possession of Weapons by Felons
720 ILCS 5/24-1.7 — Armed Habitual Criminal
720 ILCS 5/12-3.05 — Aggravated Battery
Illinois Supreme Court Rules
