Background
Robert A. Gromm was indicted in August 2020 for unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, but he was not arrested until December 2023. After his arrest and pretrial release, Gromm elected to represent himself and orally requested a “fast and speedy” jury trial. The circuit court told him that an out-of-custody defendant had to submit a written demand to invoke the statutory 160-day speedy-trial period, but Gromm never filed one.
Trial was postponed several times because of an unavailable prosecution witness, Gromm’s health, the presiding judge’s health, and a prosecution scheduling conflict. A jury ultimately found Gromm guilty in April 2025, and the court sentenced him to three years in prison. On appeal, Gromm argued that the delay violated his constitutional speedy-trial right and that Illinois’s unlawful-possession-by-a-felon statute was facially unconstitutional under the federal and state constitutions.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed. It held that Gromm forfeited his constitutional speedy-trial claim because he did not specifically raise it before trial and in a posttrial motion. Although the 40-month period between indictment and arrest was presumptively prejudicial under the Barker v. Wingo framework, the record did not disclose why that delay occurred. Because Gromm bore the burden under plain-error review and the existing record did not clearly demonstrate a constitutional violation, he failed to establish a clear or obvious error.
The court also rejected Gromm’s facial challenges to the felon-in-possession statute. Applying its prior analysis in People v. Travis, it concluded that felons fall within the Second Amendment’s textual protection but that their disarmament is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of disarming dangerous persons. The statute was also valid under the Illinois Constitution as a proper exercise of the state’s police power. Justice Holdridge specially concurred, agreeing that the conviction should be affirmed but reasoning that the speedy-trial issue was better suited to collateral proceedings, where the parties could develop the reasons for the postindictment delay.
Key Takeaways
- A 40-month postindictment, pre-arrest delay was presumptively prejudicial, but that fact alone did not establish a constitutional speedy-trial violation on an undeveloped record.
- A defendant seeking plain-error review bears the burden of showing a clear or obvious error from the existing record; gaps concerning the reasons for delay were construed against Gromm.
- Illinois’s unlawful-possession-by-a-felon statute is facially constitutional under both the Second Amendment and article I, section 22 of the Illinois Constitution.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the practical difficulty of litigating an unpreserved constitutional speedy-trial claim on direct appeal when the trial record does not explain a lengthy pre-arrest delay. The majority treated that evidentiary gap as fatal under plain-error review, while the special concurrence would have left the issue for collateral proceedings.
The decision also reaffirms the Third District’s view that Illinois may categorically prohibit firearm possession by felons after Bruen. The order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).