THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PHILLIP THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 1-20-0463
FIRST DISTRICT SIXTH DIVISION
April 22, 2022
2022 IL App (1st) 200463
JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Pierce concurred in the judgment and opinion. Justice Oden Johnson dissented, with opinion.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 94 CR 26814 01. Honorable Thomas Joseph Hennelly, Judge Presiding.
¶ 1 Defendant, Phillip Thompson, appeals the circuit court‘s dismissal of his postconviction petition at the first stage. On appeal, defendant contends that his sentence of 80 years’ imprisonment for a murder that was committed when he was 18 years old was unconstitutional pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and its progeny; therefore, his petition was neither frivolous nor patently without merit. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. JURISDICTION
¶ 3 The circuit court dismissed defendant‘s postconviction petition on January 10, 2020. Defendant filed a notice оf appeal on February 10, 2020. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to
II. BACKGROUND
¶ 5 A full accounting of the facts can be found in this court‘s order involving defendant‘s direct appeal. See People v. Thompson, No. 1-96-0711 (1997) (unpublished order under
¶ 6 On October 10, 1994, the police discovered David Grover on the floor of his bedroom, bleeding from a gunshot wound to his head. Three shotgun shells were found in the hall leading to Grover‘s room, and at least two shots hit the door of his room. Grover was transported to the hospital where he later died.
¶ 7 A man who lived near Grover told police he saw members of the Mafia Vice Lords gang run into a nearby building around the time shots were fired. Police subsequently arrested defendant and DeWayne Bоlden, two members of the gang. Defendant was 18 years old at the time.
¶ 8 On February 7, 1995, after defendant‘s arrest but prior to his trial, defendant was charged with murder in relation to the robbery and beating death of Mark Simms. This incident occurred on June 15, 1992, when defendant was 15 years old.
¶ 9 Regarding the murder of Grover, the trial court conducted simultaneous jury trials of defendant and Bolden before separate juries. At the trial, Donald Hardy testified that in 1994, he belonged to the Mafia Vice Lords. On October 10, 1994, he saw Bolden and several other members of the gang holding baseball bats in front of Grover‘s apartment building. Hardy saw
¶ 10 The next day, defendant said to Hardy, “I brought my s*** straight to [Grover].” Hardy explained that defendant meant he shot Grover. Defendant said that Grover owed money to the gang. Later that day, Hardy was picked up by police, and he showed them the shotgun in the abandoned building.
¶ 11 Felicia Wright, Grover‘s girlfriend, testified that on October 10, 1994, Grover was arguing with people, and she heard gangs mentioned. She then heard someone run up the back stairs of the apartment building. Wright stepped out of the room, and Grover slammed his door shut. She saw defendant pass her as he held a shotgun. He told her to move out of the way before he fired a shot at Grovеr‘s door. Wright then heard two more shots. She admitted that on the day of the shooting, she told police she was not in the building when the shooting occurred. She lied because she was “scared to death” and “didn‘t want to have anything to do with it.” Wright came to testify only because police arrested her for failure to respond to the State‘s subpoena.
¶ 12 The medical examiner determined that Grover died from a gunshot to his head. The cluster of pellets indicated that the gun discharged within three feet of his head, although the examiner could not be certain of the distance because medical personnel cleaned the wound while Grover was alive. In his opinion, the gunpowder residue and close cluster of pellets indicated that the gun was probably in contact with Grover‘s head whеn it discharged.
¶ 13 The defense rested without presenting any evidence, and the jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder.
¶ 14 At defendant‘s sentencing hearing, the State presented evidence related to defendant‘s juvenile offenses. On November 21, 1991, an officer observed defendant engaged in four hand-to-hand drug transactions. Police recovered 54 packets of cocaine from defendant. On March 31, 1992, another officer responded to reports of a gang commotion in the area of Grover‘s building. People ran when police arrived, but defendant did not run. The officer searched defendant and found 11 .32-caliber bullets in his pocket. Defendant gave police a fake name and birth date. Another officer testified that in 1992, he saw defendant and another man fire into a crowd in the street, injuring a woman. Defendant fled, and during the chase by police, he pointed a gun at them. When police stopped defendant, he gave them a fake name and address. A presentence investigation report showed defendant‘s juvenile adjudications of guilt for (1) 1989 aggravated battery and robbery and (2) 1992 aggravated battery, aggravated discharge of a firearm, and other weapons charges.
¶ 15 The State also informed the court that in 1992, defendant and “two partners” chased Mark Simms down two flights of stairs, punching and beating him until he was unconscious. The parties stipulated that Simms was found in a stairwell at 4120 South Prairie on June 15, 1992, and that he suffered from numerous blunt trauma injuries. He was taken to the hospital, where he remained in a coma until his death on November 17, 1992.
¶ 17 At the sentencing hearing, defendant‘s counsel argued that the court should “take into consideration all of [defendant‘s] background, his whole history.” He pointed to the fact that defendant‘s parents were divorced and, as a result, any influence his father had over defendant “diminished to the point that he associated with the Vice Lords.” Counsel argued that the juvenile system failed defendant. He had “great potential for rehabilitation,” and counsel asked for a sentence that will “give him sufficient hope in the end to be able to rehabilitate himself in prison so thаt when he is released he becomes a functioning, contributing member of society.” Defendant also addressed the court, stating that he was “sorry for what happened.”
¶ 18 In sentencing defendant, the trial court stated:
“Okay. As I was saying, the system does appear to have failed in this case, not only failed Mr. Thompson but failed society, failed certainly the victim, the victims’ [sic] family and Mr. Thompson‘s family also. I can‘t say that the system should be the one to be blamed. Certainly there is more than enough blame to be shouldered by Mr. Thompson who had opportunities to change his lifestyle, to change his attitudes. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands perhaps tens of thousands of people who grow up in the same neighborhoods across this country, the same kind of neighborhood Mr. Thompson grew up in. Some of them grew up in the same sort of fаmily difficulties, members of broken homes or single family parents that don‘t turn out to be murderers.
There can be no question that in this case Mr. Thompson acted on behalf of his gang, acted the way he had been acting it appears for quite some time ***, a circle of violence that remained unbroken until he was brought in to Cook County Jail it appears. Nothing seemed to stop the escalation of the violence and the criminal activity that Mr. Thompson was engaged in until he was arrested.
I don‘t see anything that would indicate to me that Mr. Thompson *** has any tremendous remorse because of placing the gun to the head of a person *** and pulling the trigger. That in addition to all the other aggravation the State has presented to this Court shows to me that Mr. Thompson is probably not fit to be rеhabilitated, at least not in the terms that most of us would think would be any time soon.
My only hope is that during the period of time that Mr. Thompson is incarcerated that other people aren‘t hurt by a guy who obviously holds life so cheaply
that he has no problem committing these types of offenses. It will be the order of this Court that Mr. Thompson be sentenced to a period of 80 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. I‘m extending the term to 80 years because of the defendant‘s background and because of the particularly brutal and heinous nature of this offense. This offense could be characterized as a cold-blooded assassination of the victim in this manner.”
¶ 19 On December 27, 1995, after a separate bench trial, the court found defendant guilty of the murder of Simms. Defendant was 15 years old at the time of the murder. The trial court sentenced defendant to a mandatory life sentence for the murder, along with a concurrent sentence of seven years for his robbery conviction. Defendant subsequently filed a postconviction petition challenging his sentence as unconstitutional pursuant to Miller. Although the postconviction proceedings are not in the record, the parties agree that the trial court subsequently vacated defendant‘s sentence and he was resentenced to concurrent terms of 60 years’ and 7 years’ imprisonment, respectively.
¶ 20 Defendant filed a direct appeal of his conviction for the murder of Grover, raising evidentiary and sentencing issues. This court affirmed his conviction and sentence in Thompson, No. 1-96-0711.
¶ 21 On December 2, 2019, defendant filed his postсonviction petition. Therein, he argued that he was serving a de facto life sentence for offenses that occurred when he was a young adult, and that he was entitled to a new sentencing hearing. He further asserted that his sentence of 80 years’ imprisonment “violates the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois constitution.” Defendant acknowledged that he was not a juvenile but argued that the eighth amendment “may be violated as applied to a particular young adult over the age of 18, where, based on science and the [defendant‘s] individual circumstances, he demonstrates that he is sufficiently similar to juveniles such that Miller should apply.” As support, defendant cited articles finding that the brain continues to mature into one‘s early twenties, indicating that Miller‘s protections should еxtend to young adults. He also attached interviews with his family members and his medical, education, and placement records.
¶ 22 After reviewing defendant‘s petition, the court found that Miller was inapplicable “because of his age.” The court ruled that the petition was frivolous and patently without merit and denied leave to file it. Defendant filed this appeal.
III. ANALYSIS
¶ 24 The
¶ 25 Defendant argues that the court erred in dismissing his petition where it presented a gist of a constitutional claim. His petition alleged that his de facto life sentence of 80 years’ imprisonment violates the proportionate penalties clause as applied to him because the trial court did not fully consider the characteristics of youth when imposing his sentence. He acknowledges that he was 18 years old when he committed the offensе, but contends he was entitled to Miller‘s protections because studies have shown that his brain, like those of juvenile defendants, was still developing in areas relevant to maturity and moral culpability.
¶ 26 It is well established under Miller and its progeny that a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for a juvenile offender, with no opportunity to consider the “distinctive attributes of youth,” violates the eighth amendment because such a sentence “poses too great a risk of disproportionate punishment.” Miller, 567 U.S. at 472, 479. Although Miller involved a juvenile‘s mandatory life sentence, our supreme court found that the reasoning in Miller applied equally to juveniles who received any life sentence, whether mandated by statute or upon discretion of the sentencing court. See People v. Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 40. Two years later, the court extended Miller‘s protections to juveniles who received a de facto life sentence or a sentence of more than 40 years’ imрrisonment. See People v. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶ 41.
¶ 27 In Buffer, the supreme court noted that the imposition of mandatory life sentences for juveniles is prohibited because such sentences do not provide a meaningful opportunity for release “‘based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.‘” Id. ¶ 20 (quoting Miller, 567 U.S. at 479). Based on Miller‘s rationale, the court found that a prison sentence of a term of years, other than life imprisonment, could be “the functional equivalent of life without parole” if it did not provide juvenile defendants a meaningful opportunity for release. Id. ¶¶ 29, 41. Extrapolating from recent legislative enactments, the court concluded that “a prison sentence of 40 years or less imposed on a juvenile offender provides some meaningful opportunity to obtain release” and therefore, “does not constitute a de facto life sentence in violation of the eighth amendment.” Id. ¶ 41. While the court noted the objections against categorical rules, it drew the line at 40 years because “[c]lear, predictable, and uniform constitutional standards are especially desirable’ in applying the eighth amendment.” Id. ¶ 29 (quoting Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 594 (2005) (O‘Connor, J., dissenting)).
¶ 28 It follows that to prevail on his Miller-based claim, defendant must show that he “was subject to a life sentence, mandatory or discretionary, natural or de facto.” Id. ¶ 27. Defendant was sentenced to 80 years’ imprisonment. At the time defendant committed the murder,
¶ 29 The murder in this case occurred in 1994. As defendant acknowledges, he is entitled to the day-for-day statutory sentencing credit. The State argues that because defendant is entitled to the day-for-day credit, he need only serve 40 years of his 80-year sentence. Therefore, defendant‘s sentence is not a de facto life sentence under Buffer. We agree.
¶ 30 In People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 49, our supreme court considered the effect of day-for-day sentencing credit “on the quеstion of whether a de facto life sentence without the possibility of parole has been imposed.” The defendant in Dorsey received an aggregate sentence of 76 years’ imprisonment but, like defendant here, he was eligible for the day-for-day credit. Id. ¶¶ 50-51. The court noted that Buffer is a “fundamentally different” case because the sentencing scheme utilized in Buffer provided no opportunity for good-conduct credit. Id. ¶ 64. Therefore, “the more-than-40-years mark in Buffer is meant to be the line for a de facto life sentence where there is no opportunity to demonstrate rehabilitation and obtain release short of serving more than 40 years in prison.” Id.
¶ 31 Unlike the sentencing scheme in Buffer, the day-for-day credit scheme requires that defendant receive day-for-day good conduct credit and each day of credit must “‘reduce by one day’ ” defendant‘s sentence imposed by the court. Id. ¶ 51 (quoting
¶ 32 The court concluded that the day-for-day credit scheme allows the defendant “‘some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demоnstrated maturity and rehabilitation’ before he spends more than 40 years in prison.” Id. ¶ 65. This opportunity for release “short of a de facto life sentence” is “on par with discretionary parole for a life sentence,” a sentencing scheme that “pass[es] muster under the eighth amendment.” Id. ¶ 54 (citing Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 212 (2016)). Accordingly, the supreme court held that the defendant‘s 76-year sentence, “which offers an opportunity for release after serving 38 years in prison, was not a
¶ 33 Dorsey made clear that Miller‘s constitutional concerns pertain to the statutory scheme under which a juvenile defendant was sentenced, and not to the sentence he or she may end up serving. See id. ¶ 58. When a defendant is eligible for day-for-day good credit, “the governing factors *** are defendant‘s sentence and the laws surrounding good-conduct credit toward that sentence. *** No additional fact finding is necessary ***.” Id. We therefore disagree with the dissent‘s argument that defendant‘s recеipt of a demerit after his incarceration is relevant to the de facto life sentence calculation.
¶ 34 Like the defendant in Dorsey, defendant here is entitled to the day-for-day sentence credit. As such, the earliest opportunity he has to obtain release is after serving 40 years of his 80-year sentence, short of a de facto life sentence. See id. ¶ 54 (noting that the supreme court considers “the juvenile defendants’ earliest opportunity for release in assessing whether a de facto life sentence had been imposed“). Following Dorsey, as we must, we find that defendant‘s 80-year sentence was not a de facto life sentence in violation of the eighth amendment.
¶ 35 Defendant argues that even if we follow Dorsey, his sentence exceeds the Buffer line because his three-year period of mandatory supervised release (MSR), to be served after he completes his sentence, should be considered part of his sentence. He contends that he is still serving his sentence during the MSR period because the Department of Corrections (DOC) “retains custody” of him, citing People v. Correa, 108 Ill. 2d 541 (1985), as support. The issue in Correa was whether the defendаnt could file a postconviction petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act after he completed his sentence, but while he was on MSR. The court found that the MSR term was part of the defendant‘s sentence and, during the MSR period, the defendant remained in DOC custody. Id. at 546. Therefore, he was still serving his sentence while on MSR and was entitled to seek relief under the Act. Id. at 547.
¶ 36 We agree that under Illinois law, defendants on MSR remain in DOC custody and are under sentence. See Holly v. Montes, 231 Ill. 2d 153, 165-66 (2008). We do not agree that, as a result, defendant‘s MSR term must be added to his court-imposed prison sentence when determining whether he received a de facto life sentence under Buffer. Although defendant remains in DOC custody while on MSR, that does not mean he remains imprisoned. See id. at 166 (noting that MSR “home confinement is not the equivalent of incarceration in the penitentiary“). The сoncern in Miller and Buffer was the lifetime imprisonment of juvenile offenders with no opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. See Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶¶ 20-21.
¶ 37 Furthermore, the supreme court in Buffer was aware of the defendant‘s “aggregate sentence of 50 years, followed by 3 years of mandatory supervised release.” Id. ¶ 5. Throughout its opinion, however, the court referred only to the defendant‘s court-imposed prison term in its discussion of a de facto life sentence. See id. ¶ 40 (“In determining when a juvenile defendant‘s prison term is long enough to be considered de facto life without parole, we choose to draw a line at 40 years.“); Id. ¶ 41 (“a prison sentence of 40 years or less” provides some opportunity for juvenile defendants
“In the case at bar, defendant committed an offense, at age 16, that subjected him to a legislatively mandated minimum sentence of 45 years and for which he received a sentence of 50 years. Because defendant‘s sentence was greater than 40 years, we conclude that defendant received a de facto life sentence.” Id. ¶ 42.
Our supreme court in Buffer knew of the defendant‘s MSR term following his 50-year sentence, but clearly excluded it when determining whether he had received a de facto life sentence.
¶ 38 Pursuant to Dorsey, defendant can obtain release after serving 40 years of his sentence. Our supreme court has determined that “a prison sentence of 40 years or less” is not a de facto life sentence because it provides some meaningful opportunity for a juvenile defendant “to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶ 41. Even if we consider defendant to be a juvenile, as he contends, a Miller-based claim requires that he had received a “a life sentence, mandatory or discretionary, natural or de facto.” Id. ¶ 27. Accordingly, his postconviction sentencing claim based on Miller‘s protections cannot stand. See People v. Hilliard, 2021 IL App (1st) 200112, ¶ 31 (declining “to extend Miller to sentences of less than natural or de facto life imprisonment“).
¶ 39 Defendant, however, asserts that dismissal of his petition was premature where he had no opportunity to develop facts supporting his proportionate penalties claim before the circuit court. He argues that he should have the opportunity to do so in a postconviction proceeding, citing People v. Harris, 2018 IL 121932, as support.
¶ 40 In Harris, the 18-year-old defendant was convicted of first degree murder and other offenses and sentenced to a mandatory aggregate sentence of 76 years’ imprisonment. Id. ¶ 16. The defendant argued that the reasoning of Miller should be extended to him as a young adult, and in doing so, the mandatory sentencing scheme as applied to him violates the proportionate penalties clаuse. Id. ¶¶ 36-37. He maintained that the underlying record contained “sufficient information about his personal history to allow the court to consider whether the evolving science on juvenile maturity and brain development relied upon in Miller applies to him.” Id. ¶ 42.
¶ 41 Our supreme court disagreed. It found that the record contained only “basic information” on the defendant, primarily taken from the presentence investigation report. Id. ¶ 46. The trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue, nor did it make findings on how the evolving science on juvenile brain development applies to the defendant‘s specific facts and circumstances. Id. Therefore, it found defendant‘s proportionate penalties contention “premature.” Id. The court also stated that the defendant‘s claim was “more appropriately raised” in a postconviction proceeding. Id. ¶ 48.
¶ 42 In the recent case of People v. House, 2021 IL 125124, our supreme court reaffirmed its holding in Harris. In House, the 19-year-old defendant was sentenced to a mandatory natural life imprisonment term for the abduction and shooting deaths of two people, based on a theory of accountability. Id. ¶ 5. The defendant filed a postconviction petition alleging, in part, that his mandatory sentence of natural life in prison violated the proportionate penalties
¶ 43 The State appealed to the supreme court as a matter of right. Id. ¶ 13. The supreme court reiterated its statement in Harris that “as-applied constitutional challenges are dependent on the specific facts and circumstances of the challenging party,” and as a result, the record must “‘be sufficiently developed in terms of those facts and circumstances for purposes of appellate review.‘” Id. ¶ 27 (quoting Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶ 39). The court found that
“as in Harris, [the defendant] did not provide or cite any evidence relating to how the evolving science on juvenile maturity and brain development applies to his specific facts and сircumstances. As a result, no evidentiary hearing was held, and the trial court made no factual findings critical to determining whether the science *** applies equally to young adults, or to [the defendant] specifically, as he argued in the appellate court.” Id. ¶ 29.
Our supreme court noted that the appellate court‘s opinion “relied on articles from a newspaper and an advocacy group.” Id. However, the circuit court made no “factual findings concerning the scientific research cited in the articles, the limits of that research, or the competing scientific research, let alone how that research applies to petitioner‘s characteristics and circumstances.” Id. Citing Harris, the court concluded that the appellate cоurt erred in finding that the defendant‘s sentence of natural life violated the proportionate penalties clause as applied to him. Id. ¶ 31. The cause was remanded to the circuit court for second-stage postconviction proceedings. Id. ¶ 32.
¶ 44 Although defendant here cites Harris and House as support for his argument, there is a significant distinction regarding those defendants: they received sentences of life imprisonment. Other cases defendant cites on the issue—including People v. Minniefield, 2020 IL App (1st) 170541, People v. Daniels, 2020 IL App (1st) 171738, and People v. Johnson, 2020 IL App (1st) 171362—also involved young adult defendants who sought to challenge their natural or de facto life sentences under the proportionate penalties clause.1 The fact that these
¶ 45 Defendant argues that his petition should be considered, nonetheless, because his sentence was right on the 40-year line and if it had been only one day longer, it would have fallen within Buffer‘s de facto life sentence boundary. He questions whether Buffer‘s 40-year line should even apply to him as a young adult because Buffer was concerned with juvenile defendants and, as an offender “who [was] older at the time of arrest,” he “suffer[s] the risk of geriatric release after a shorter-term.”
¶ 46 The prospect of a defendant‘s “geriatric release,” however, was not the primary consideration of our supreme court when it set the 40-year line. The Buffer court deliberately chose not to calculate an age based on statistics or actuarial tables because it recognized the breadth of disagreement as to what constitutes a de facto life sentence. See Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶¶ 31-33. But the court also knew that it had to draw a line for determining such a sentence, finding that clаrity and uniformity are “‘especially desirable‘” when applying the eighth amendment to sentencing claims. Id. ¶ 29 (quoting Roper, 543 U.S. at 594 (O‘Connor, J., dissenting)). The court
extrapolated the 40-year number from the legislature, the entity best suited to prescribe minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment. Id. ¶ 35. Within this context, the court concluded that a sentence of more than 40 years for juvenile defendants is a de facto life sentence. Id. ¶ 42.
¶ 47 Until we have further guidance from our supreme court, we adhere to Buffer‘s 40-year line when determining whether a young adult defendant received a de facto life sentence that required the protections of Miller. To have one rule for juveniles and another for young adults who claim they are no different from juveniles would create a dissonance that is incompatible with Buffer‘s goal of providing clear and predictable constitutional standards on the issue. Defendant can of course argue that his less-than-de facto life sentence is uncоnstitutional based on the particular facts of his case. This argument, however, is a straight-forward proportionate penalties claim that does not rely on Miller‘s protections for juvenile defendants.
¶ 48 The proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution provides that “[a]ll penalties shall be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship.”
¶ 49 The evidence presented at trial showed that the victim, Grover, was arguing with a member of defendant‘s gang, and defendant ran to Grover‘s apartment with a shotgun, held the gun to Grover‘s head, and shot him. The trial court sentenced defendant, who was a legal adult at the time of the murder, to an extended term of 80 years “because of the particularly brutal and heinous nature of this offense. This offense could be charаcterized as a cold-blooded assassination of the victim in this manner.” Since defendant qualifies for day-for-day sentence credit, he is required to serve at least 50 percent, or 40 years, of his sentence. Due to the violent nature of Grover‘s murder, defendant‘s sentence does not shock the moral sense of the community, especially when we consider that defendant could obtain release after serving 40 years.
¶ 50 Even if we accept defendant‘s contention that he is more similar to a juvenile, our legislature has determined that a minimum of 40 years’ imprisonment is appropriate for juveniles who commit first degree murder. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶ 39 (referencing
IV. CONCLUSION
¶ 52 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court‘s dismissal of defendant‘s postconviction petition as frivolous and patently without merit.
¶ 53 Affirmed.
¶ 54 JUSTICE ODEN JOHNSON, dissenting:
¶ 55 I respectfully disagree with the majority‘s decision in this case. Defendant raises two issues in this appeal from the summary dismissal of his pro se postconviction petition, namely: (1) whether his sentence constitutes an unconstitutional de facto life sentence and (2) whether his sentence was unconstitutional as applied to him under the prоportionate penalties clause. In this case, defendant is serving a sentence of 80 years for the 1994 offense, concurrent to his sentences of 60 years and 7 years for the 1995 offenses. The majority holds that our supreme court‘s decision in the recent case of People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, dictates the conclusion that defendant‘s 80-year sentence, for which he is eligible for day-for-day credit, is not a de facto life sentence, since, presumably, defendant will be eligible for release after he has served 40 years of his sentence. Thus, the majority holds, the sentencing scheme satisfies the eight amendment and People v. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327. However, I submit that Dorsey does not answer the question in instances, such as presented here, when defendant has received tickets or other
¶ 56 Further, the majority does not fully address defendant‘s arguments concerning violations of the proportionate penalties clause. I note that the supreme court did not reach the defendant‘s proportionate penalties argument in Dorsey because it found that the claims were forfeited and barred by res judicata on the basis of the particular facts of that case. Id. ¶ 69. There are no such barriers here. Although defendant attempted to raise his as-applied constitutional challenge in his direct appeal, this court declined to review such claim, finding it premature, and advised that such claim was more appropriate in a postconviction proceeding. However, his pro se petition was summarily dismissed without any consideration of his as-applied constitutional challenge, and the majority simply defers to the legislature‘s power to construct criminal penalties. I do not believe that this conclusion adequately addresses an as-applied constitutional challenge based on a defendant‘s assertion that the legislatively prescribed penalty is unfair to him specifically. I would therefore consider defendant‘s as-applied constitutional claim that his sentence violated the proportionate penalties clause and would find that he met the very low bar for raising such claim at this stage of the postconviction proceedings.
¶ 57 Here, as noted previously, defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition that was summarily dismissed at the first stage. At the first stage, the trial court evaluates the petition on its own without input from the parties. People v. Thomas, 2014 IL App (2d) 121001, ¶ 47. Any petition deemed frivolous or patently without merit must be dismissed. Id. A petition is considered frivolous or patently without merit where it has no arguable basis either in law or in fact in that it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or fanciful factual allegations.” Id. (citing People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1, 16 (2009)). In the case of a constitutional claim, a pro se petitioner is not required to allege facts supporting all elements. Id. ¶ 48. Pro se petitions must be given a liberal construction and are to be viewed with a lenient eye, allowing borderline cases to proceed. Id. Because a pro se petitioner is likely unaware of the precise legal basis for his claim, the threshold for survival is low. A pro se petitioner need only allege enough facts to make out a claim that is arguably constitutional for purposes of invoking the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. Id. We review de novo the dismissal of a postconviction petition at the first stage. Id.
¶ 58 The proportionate penalties clause embodies our evolving standаrd of decency. People v. Savage, 2020 IL App (1st) 173135, ¶ 64. Part of this evolving standard is the idea that deterrence may have little-to-no
¶ 59 A review of defendant‘s pro se petition reveals that he made the following arguments in support of his contention that his 80-year sentence violated the proportionate penalties clause as applied to him: (1) he was just 18 years old and still developing as a young man at the time of the offense, (2) that the proportionate penalties clause may be violated when an offender is 18 where, based on science and the defendant‘s individual circumstances, he demonstrates that he is sufficiently similar to juveniles such that the Miller protections should be applied, (3) our supreme court has indicated that scientific research on the neurological development of young adults over the agе of 18 should be presented to the trial court at a postconviction evidentiary hearing to determine whether an “emerging adult” should be treated as a juvenile under Miller, and (4) his sentence fails to provide him with a real opportunity to demonstrate growth and maturity and seems more consistent with eliminating his utility as a citizen rather than restoring him to useful citizenship. He also attached to his petition several documents demonstrating the neurological differences between young adult brains and adult brains that advocated affording young adults the same sentencing guidelines as those imposed on juvenile offenders. Defendant also included a mitigation report, dated March 7, 2016, which detailed specific circumstances and details of his life and upbringing that had a “deleterious effect on [his] formаtive years, subsequently shaping his personality and resulting in the current circumstances of his life.”
¶ 60 The proportionate penalties clause provides greater protections than the eighth amendment does. Meneses, 2022 IL App (1st) 191247-B, ¶ 22; Savage, 2020 IL App (1st) 173135, ¶ 65. Under the broader protections of Illinois‘s proportionate penalties clause, I believe that defendant has met the low threshold at this stage to allege an arguable claim of disproportionality that is neither frivolous nor patently without merit. Accordingly, I would reverse and remand for second stage postconviction proceedings.
Cite as: People v. Thompson, 2022 IL App (1st) 200463
Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 94-CR-26814-01; the Hon. Thomas Joseph Hennelly, Judge, presiding.
Attorneys for Appellant: James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Jonathan Yeasting, of State Appellate Defender‘s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Attorneys for Appellee: Kimberly M. Foxx, State‘s Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham, Hareena Meghani-Wakely, and Tasha-Marie Kelly, Assistant State‘s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.