2021 IL App (4th) 190891-U
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- In 1995 Summers (age 19) was charged with aggravated vehicular hijacking, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, and armed robbery; a jury convicted him of aggravated vehicular hijacking and armed robbery.
- The Champaign County court imposed concurrent 30-year terms for those convictions, ordered to run consecutively to concurrent 60-year terms he received in a separate Clinton County case (from an earlier guilty plea).
- Summers has filed multiple collateral challenges over the years (five prior postconviction petitions and three 2-1401 petitions) without success.
- In November 2019 he sought leave to file a sixth successive postconviction petition asserting an as-applied constitutional challenge (Eighth Amendment and Illinois proportionate-penalties clause), relying on Miller v. Alabama and later cases, arguing his aggregate ~90-year de facto life sentence failed to account for his youth.
- The trial court denied leave; Summers appealed, arguing he established cause and prejudice under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act to file a successive petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Summers showed cause and prejudice to obtain leave to file a successive postconviction petition under 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) | Summers failed to identify an objective impediment or show the unraised claim so infected proceedings as to violate due process | Miller and subsequent Illinois decisions provide new, evolving law supporting an as-applied challenge to his aggregate sentence given his youth and aggregate de facto life exposure | Denied — Summers did not show cause or prejudice; leave to file successive petition properly denied |
| Whether Miller (Eighth Amendment) supports an as-applied challenge for a 19-year-old sentenced to a de facto life term | Miller applies only to offenders under 18; it cannot be extended to young adults | Miller’s reasoning on youth and brain development supports an Eighth Amendment or state-proportionate-penalties claim for young adults | Denied — Miller’s Eighth Amendment rule does not apply to those 18 or older; Summers’ Eighth Amendment claim fails |
| Whether Miller’s announcement of law supplies "cause" to revive an Illinois proportionate-penalties challenge | Miller does not create cause to bring a state proportionate-penalties claim; prior recognition of youth differences meant Miller only provided additional support, not an unavailable legal basis | Miller’s reasoning and subsequent Illinois decisions about youth development supply the new legal basis that prevented earlier litigation | Denied — Under Dorsey and related authority, Miller is not sufficient to establish cause for a state proportionate-penalties claim; Summers could have raised the claim earlier |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule that applies retroactively)
- People v. Guerrero, 2012 IL 112020 (Illinois requires showing both cause and prejudice to file successive postconviction petitions)
- People v. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327 (a Miller-based claim requires showing a life sentence and that the sentencing court failed to consider youth and attendant characteristics)
- People v. Harris, 2018 IL 121932 (Illinois agrees federal courts decline to extend Miller to young adults)
- People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010 (Miller’s Eighth Amendment rule does not provide cause to raise a state proportionate-penalties claim in a successive petition)