IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
A.D., 2004
| RONALD L. WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. TAZEWELL COUNTY STATE'S Respondent, and ILLINOIS STATE POLICE, Appellant. | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) | Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 10th Judicial Circuit Tazewell County, Illinois, No. 02 MR 42 Honorable J. Peter Ault, Judge Presiding. |
JUSTICE SLATER delivered the opinion of the court:
The appellant, the Illinois State Police (ISP), appeals fromthe denial of its motion to vacate the trial court's orderdirecting the ISP to issue the appellee, Ronald Williams, afirearm owners identification (FOID) card. On appeal, the ISPcontends that the trial court's order directing it to issueWilliams a FOID card should be vacated for lack of personal andsubject matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons, weaffirm.
On February 11, 2002, the ISP sent Williams written noticethat his FOID card application was rejected because he hadpreviously been convicted of domestic battery(1). 720 ILCS 5/12--3.2(a) (West 1992). The letter from the ISP to Williams stated,"[Y]our application will not be processed at this time due toyour 'yes' answer(s) to the question 'Have you ever beenconvicted of domestic battery' . . ." On May 29, 2002, Williamsfiled a petition in the trial court seeking a hearing on therejection of his application. Williams named the Tazewell CountyState's Attorney's Office as the sole respondent.
In his petition, Williams alleged that on August 8, 1994, hehad been convicted of domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12--3.2(a)(West 1992)) for which he had successfully completed a term ofprobation. Williams alleged that he wanted a FOID card so thathe could hunt during the legal hunting season. He alleged thatsubstantial justice had not been done by denying his FOID cardapplication because: (1) the denial banned him for life fromparticipating in a family pastime enjoyed by many; (2) he hadnever been convicted of a forcible felony; (3) his lack ofcriminal history and his reputation were such that he was notlikely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety; and (4) granting him relief was not contrary to the public interest.
On August 7, 2002, the trial court held that substantialjustice had not been done by the denial of Williams' FOID cardapplication and ordered the ISP to issue a FOID card to him.
On November 11, 2002, the ISP filed a special and limitedappearance and a petition to vacate the trial court's orderdirecting it to issue Williams a FOID card. 735 ILCS 5/2--1401(West 2002). In its petition, the ISP stated that it not beenserved with Williams' petition or consented to a be a party tothe proceedings. Therefore, the ISP argued that the judgmentshould be vacated because the trial court lacked jurisdictionover it.
On January 27, 2003, Williams filed a response to the ISP'spetition to vacate. In his response, Williams alleged that thetrial court had jurisdiction to hear his petition and direct theISP to issue him a FOID card pursuant to Illinois law. 430 ILCS65/10 (West 2002). He alleged that he was not required by law tonotify the ISP or make them a party to that proceeding. Williamsclaimed that Illinois law only required that the relevant state'sattorney be served a copy of the petition, which he did. See 430ILCS 65/10(b) (West 2002). Finally, Williams alleged that theISP had no legal standing to intervene.
On January 30, 2003, the trial court held a hearing on theISP motion to vacate. At the hearing, counsel for the ISP arguedthat it was a legislative oversight that the ISP was not listedas a party to be notified and served when an individualpetitioned the trial court for a FOID card. See 430 ILCS 65/10(West 2002). The ISP insisted that the trial court must vacateits order directing the ISP to issue Williams a FOID card becausethe court did not have jurisdiction over the ISP when it had notbeen served with Williams' petition nor consented to be a partyto the proceedings.
On February 4, 2003, the trial court entered an orderdenying the petition to vacate. The court noted that while itagreed with the ISP that the statute in question should haverequired service upon the ISP, it did not. See 430 ILCS 65/10(West 2002). The court found that: (1) Williams had compliedwith Illinois law by providing service to the state's attorney;and (2) substantial justice had not been done in denyingWilliam's application.
Prior to 2001, section 10 of the Firearm OwnersIdentification Card Act (Act) provided, in relevant part:
"