People v. Moore
2023 IL 126461
Ill.2023Background:
- Tory S. Moore and Marvin Williams were 19 when they committed separate 1997 murders and received discretionary life-without-parole sentences.
- Both sought leave to file successive postconviction petitions arguing their sentences are unconstitutional in light of Miller v. Alabama and related Supreme Court decisions.
- Under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1(f)), leave requires pleading both cause (an objective impediment to earlier presentation) and prejudice (the unraised claim so infected the trial or sentence as to violate due process).
- Moore’s motion for leave was denied by the trial and appellate courts; Williams’ motion was denied by the trial court but the appellate court granted leave.
- The Illinois Supreme Court consolidated the appeals and considered whether Miller, and related authority, supplied cause to file successive postconviction petitions attacking discretionary LWOP sentences imposed on young adults.
- The Court held Miller did not change the law applicable to young adults or discretionary life sentences and therefore did not provide the required cause; both circuit-court denials of leave to file were affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller v. Alabama supplies "cause" under 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) to file successive postconviction petitions raising Eighth Amendment challenges to discretionary LWOP for 19‑year‑olds | Miller’s reasoning about youth and brain development supports new Eighth Amendment claims for young adults like Moore/Williams | Miller applies only to juveniles and did not alter the law for young adults or for discretionary life sentences | Denied — Miller does not provide cause for Eighth Amendment challenges by young adults; leave to file successive petitions not warranted |
| Whether Miller supplies "cause" to raise proportionate‑penalties clause (Ill. Const. art. I, § 11) challenges to discretionary LWOP for young adults | Miller’s focus on youth gives new support to proportionate‑penalties claims for young adults | Illinois law long recognized youth and related mitigating factors; Miller does not create new proportionate‑penalties principles applicable to young adults | Denied — Miller does not provide cause to raise proportionate‑penalties claims for young adults; leave to file successive petitions not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (holding mandatory juvenile LWOP unconstitutional and requiring sentencing discretion that accounts for youth).
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016) (making Miller retroactive).
- Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S. Ct. 1307 (2021) (Clarified that Miller did not require a separate factual finding of permanent incorrigibility for juvenile discretionary LWOP).
- People v. Clark, 2023 IL 127273 (Ill. 2023) (explaining Miller does not extend to young adults and does not provide cause for successive petitions under Illinois law).
- People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010 (Ill. 2021) (noting Miller’s new substantive rule under the Eighth Amendment does not itself provide cause for proportionate‑penalties claims).
- People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444 (Ill. 2002) (successive petition leave requires pleading cause and prejudice with particularity).
- People v. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450 (Ill. 2017) (standards for preliminary screening of motions for leave to file successive postconviction petitions).