People v. Vega, 2022 IL App (1st) 192189-U

Defendant Brandon Vega was 18 at the time of the offenses, convicted of two counts of attempted first-degree murder in 2016 and sentenced to 61 years (a de facto life term).
On direct appeal this court affirmed conviction but found the record insufficient for an as-applied Miller analysis and suggested such claims be raised in postconviction proceedings.
Vega filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging his 61-year sentence is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment and the Illinois proportionate-penalties clause; he pleaded childhood trauma, gang involvement, early and heavy substance use, limited education, caregiving responsibilities, rehabilitative certificates, and submitted a cousin’s affidavit.
The trial court summarily dismissed the petition as frivolous and patently without merit, concluding the petition added no new facts and the record was insufficient for Miller relief.
The appellate court vacated that dismissal, held Vega’s state-law (proportionate-penalties) as-applied Miller claim pleaded sufficient facts to survive first-stage review, remanded for second-stage proceedings, and ordered appointment of counsel; the federal Eighth Amendment claim was held not viable for an 18-year-old.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Vega’s postconviction petition plausibly alleges an as-applied Miller claim under the Illinois proportionate-penalties clause (Vega was 18).	Facts were available at sentencing; petition adds no new evidence and is frivolous.	Vega pled childhood neglect/abuse, early substance abuse, gang involvement, low education, rehabilitative progress, and supplied an affidavit—warranting Miller analysis for young adults.	Allegations suffice to survive first-stage dismissal. Case remanded for second-stage proceedings and appointment of counsel; evidentiary development may follow.
Whether an Eighth Amendment (federal) Miller-based challenge is available to an 18-year-old.	Federal precedent draws the line at under 18; claim not cognizable.	Vega invokes Miller and young-adult neuroscience to challenge sentence under the Eighth Amendment.	Federal claim is meritless for an 18‑year‑old, but the petition proceeds because the state-law claim survives.

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional because it forecloses consideration of youth-related mitigating factors)
People v. Reyes, 2016 IL 119271 (Illinois interprets Miller to forbid life or de facto life terms for juveniles when youth characteristics weren’t considered)
People v. Holman, 2017 IL 120655 (life sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment absent youth-specific consideration)
People v. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327 (held 40 years is the threshold for a de facto life sentence under Illinois law)
People v. Harris, 2018 IL 121932 (reversed appellate finding where there was no developed evidentiary record for an as-applied Miller challenge by a young adult)
People v. Daniels, 2020 IL App (1st) 171738 (explained method for young adults to show Miller-like protections apply via developed factual record)
People v. House, 2021 IL 125124 (confirmed need for an evidentiary hearing and developed record for as-applied Miller challenges)