People v. Hilliard, 2023 IL 128186

In August 2013, 18-year-old Andre Hilliard approached and fired multiple close-range shots at Devaul Killingsworth in a public housing complex; the victim suffered serious arm injuries and lasting impairment.
Hilliard was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and aggravated battery; the jury found he personally discharged a firearm that caused great bodily harm.
He was sentenced to 15 years for attempted murder plus a mandatory 25-year firearm enhancement, for an aggregate 40-year sentence.
On direct appeal the court affirmed the sentence but noted Hilliard could raise an as-applied proportionality challenge collaterally; Hilliard filed a pro se postconviction petition raising an as-applied challenge under the Illinois proportionate penalties clause based on his age (18) and developing-brain science.
The circuit court summarily dismissed the petition as frivolous; the appellate court affirmed; the Illinois Supreme Court granted leave and affirmed the dismissal.
The Supreme Court held that, even accepting Hilliard’s pleaded facts at the first-stage, the mandatory 25-year enhancement (and 40-year aggregate sentence) was not arguably cruel, degrading, or so wholly disproportionate as to shock the community’s moral sense given the deliberate, close-range shooting and Hilliard’s adult status.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the mandatory 25-year firearm enhancement is unconstitutional as applied under the Illinois proportionate penalties clause because Hilliard was 18	State: Enhancement is constitutional; legislature singled out serious firearm offenses; sentence not a mandatory or de facto life term; claim frivolous	Hilliard: At 18 his brain development and immaturity reduce culpability; mandatory enhancement prevented consideration of youth and rehabilitation	Dismissal affirmed. As-applied claim frivolous; 40-year aggregate not de facto life and enhancement not so disproportionate given facts
Whether precedent (Thompson, Harris, House, Miller) permits Miller-based as-applied challenges by 18–21-year-olds to non-life mandatory enhancements on initial postconviction review	State: Those cases relate to mandatory life sentences for juveniles/young adults; do not support challenge to non-life enhancement	Hilliard: Miller and subsequent cases permit young-adult as-applied proportionality challenges based on evolving science	Court: Rejected broad reading. Thompson/Harris/House concern mandatory life/de facto life contexts; they do not require relief for Hilliard’s non-life sentence but do not categorically bar other as-applied claims

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (U.S. Supreme Court holding mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (Supreme Court recognizing age 18 as the categorical line for juvenile sentencing distinctions)
People v. Miller (Leon Miller), 202 Ill. 2d 328 (2002) (Illinois Supreme Court invalidating a mandatory natural-life sentence as applied to a juvenile under the state proportionate penalties clause)
People v. Sharpe, 216 Ill. 2d 481 (2005) (upholding Illinois firearm enhancements against facial Eighth Amendment challenge)
People v. Morgan, 203 Ill. 2d 470 (2003) (discussing legislative rationale for severe penalties for firearm offenses)
People v. Huddleston, 212 Ill. 2d 107 (2004) (addressing legislature’s authority to prescribe mandatory sentences and contextualizing Leon Miller)