People v. Gorgis
2025 IL App (1st) 231124-U
Ill. App. Ct.2025Background
- Ninos Gorgis was convicted after a jury trial for first-degree murder and aggravated discharge of a firearm, receiving concurrent sentences of 40 years and 10 years, respectively, for a gang-related shooting at age 19.
- Gorgis filed a pro se postconviction petition arguing that his 40-year sentence (plus 3 years' mandatory supervised release) was a de facto life sentence, in violation of the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution, citing youth brain science and relevant case law.
- The trial court advanced Gorgis's petition to the second stage and appointed counsel, who supplemented the petition but did not seek a psychological evaluation or further factual development.
- The State moved to dismiss, arguing that Gorgis was over 18 at the offense and thus Miller protections did not apply, and that 40 years was not a de facto life sentence under prevailing law.
- The court granted the State’s motion to dismiss at the second stage, and Gorgis appealed, claiming his postconviction counsel failed to provide reasonable assistance and should have withdrawn if the claim was deemed frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Gorgis's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was postconviction counsel's assistance reasonable? | Counsel failed to amend petition to adequately present as-applied constitutional claim, omitted evidence, and failed to create necessary record. | Counsel filed supplemental petition and certification, presented claim reasonably, and had no further duty. | Counsel’s assistance presumed reasonable; Gorgis failed to rebut presumption. |
| Did the petition state a valid claim of unconstitutional sentencing under the proportionate penalties clause? | Sentence was unconstitutional for an “emerging adult” (age 19) based on scientific and legal developments; facts of youth, brain injury, and rehabilitation ignored. | Gorgis was not a juvenile; sentence did not qualify as de facto life; trial court considered relevant factors. | Petition did not make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation. |
| Was postconviction counsel required to withdraw if the claim was believed to be frivolous? | Counsel’s "novel approach" indicated frivolousness, hence obligation to seek withdrawal. | Withdrawal required only if counsel is certain claim is meritless; counsel did not so indicate or confess lack of merit. | No duty to withdraw; counsel did not affirmatively deem claim frivolous. |
| Was a developed factual or evidentiary record needed to support the proportionate penalties claim? | Counsel failed to obtain evaluations or fully develop proof of Gorgis's youth and related factors. | Counsel provided affidavits, records, and scientific references; higher threshold not required. | Counsel met Rule 651(c) standard; no further factual development required. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. LaPointe, 227 Ill. 2d 39 (three-stage process under Postconviction Hearing Act)
- People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192 (counsel need not amend frivolous claims, withdrawal procedures)
- People v. Cotto, 2016 IL 119006 (reasonable assistance, Rule 651(c) requirements)
- People v. Domagala, 2013 IL 113688 (second-stage burden for postconviction petitions)