People v. White
157 N.E.3d 1013
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- In 1988 White was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of concealment; convicted by jury in 1989 and sentenced to two mandatory natural-life terms plus five years for concealment.
- White pursued multiple collateral attacks over decades; this is his fifth trip to the appellate court after several postconviction and 2-1401 filings and appeals.
- In August 2017 White filed a pro se motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition, asserting his mandatory life sentences violated the Eighth Amendment and Illinois proportionate-penalties clause because he was 20 at the time of the murders and should have received youth-based sentencing consideration.
- White relied on recent appellate decisions (Harris I, House) and social-science evidence about continued brain development into the early twenties to show cause and prejudice for a successive petition.
- The circuit court denied leave, finding White failed to show cause or prejudice; the Fifth District affirmed, holding Miller protections apply to juveniles under 18, White’s claims are legally meritless, and he was a culpable adult principal whose sentence did not shock the moral sense of the community.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller-era Eighth Amendment protections apply to a 20-year-old challenging mandatory life for murders | Miller and its protections do not extend to adults 18 and over; legislature treats 18+ as adults | Scientific evidence of adolescent brain development supports applying Miller-type youth considerations to 18–21-year-olds | Denied — Miller protections not implicated for a 20‑year‑old; statutory and precedent lines treat 18+ as adults |
| Whether mandatory natural-life sentence for multiple murders violates Illinois proportionate-penalties clause as applied | Multiple‑victims statute valid as applied to adults; sentence not grossly disproportionate | Sentence shocks the moral sense given White’s youth, culpability, and rehabilitation evidence | Denied — sentence not disproportionate; White was a principal, planned and executed the murders, and was not minimally culpable |
| Whether White made a prima facie showing of cause and prejudice to obtain leave to file a successive postconviction petition | White failed to present objective impediment (cause) or a constitutional defect infecting trial/sentence (prejudice) | Recent case law and evolving science constitute new cause; prejudice shown by rehabilitative evidence and disparity among similarly situated co‑defendants | Denied — allegations and documentation insufficient; claims legally meritless and unsupported |
| Whether trial court’s failure to consider youth at sentencing is a constitutional claim warranting postconviction relief | Failure to consider youth is at most an abuse‑of‑discretion sentencing claim, not a constitutional deprivation under the Act | Not considering youth violated constitutional rights under Eighth Amendment and state clause | Denied — characterized as a nonconstitutional, garden‑variety sentencing claim that does not justify successive postconviction relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (juvenile mandatory LWOP review; youth-based sentencing considerations)
- People v. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327 (Ill. 2019) (legislation is best evidence of contemporary values on sentencing youth)
- People v. Harris, 2018 IL 121932 (Ill. 2018) (Harris II) (clarifies limits of Miller‑based claims and overturns some earlier appellate rulings)
- People v. Miller (Leon Miller), 202 Ill. 2d 328 (Ill. 2002) (proportionate‑penalties analysis for juveniles transferred to adult court)
- People v. Davis, 2014 IL 115595 (Ill. 2014) (upholding multiple‑victims mandatory life for adult offenders)
- People v. Wrice, 2012 IL 111860 (Ill. 2012) (postconviction framework; one proceeding rule and successive‑petition exceptions)
- People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444 (Ill. 2002) (codifying cause-and-prejudice test for successive postconviction petitions)
- People v. Tidwell, 236 Ill. 2d 150 (Ill. 2010) (burden to submit sufficient documentation when seeking leave for successive petition)