Case Information
No. 2-18-0526
Order filed December 22, 2020 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court OF ILLINOIS, ) of Winnebago County.
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) No. 97-CF-1081
)
MARVIN WILLIAMS, ) Honorable
) Joseph G. McGraw, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Jorgensen and Brennan concurred in the judgment.
ORDER Held : The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for leave to file a successive
postconviction petition where defendant made a showing of cause and prejudice based on a new principle of constitutional law requiring the trial court to consider a defendant’s youth and its attendant characteristics before imposing a life sentence. Defendant, Marvin Williams, appeals from the judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago
County denying his motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition. Because defendant sufficiently alleged both cause and prejudice for having not raised previously his constitutional challenges to his life sentence, we reverse and remand. I. BACKGROUND Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of two counts of first-degree murder (720
ILCS 5/9-1(a)(3) (West 1996)) based on the shooting deaths of two victims. He was sentenced to
life imprisonment without parole.
[1]
On direct appeal, he raised three issues unrelated to his
sentence, and we affirmed. See
People v. Williams
, 313 Ill. App. 3d 849 (2000). Thereafter,
defendant filed several collateral challenges, including a postconviction petition which was
summarily dismissed, and we affirmed (see
People v. Williams
, No. 2-01-0868 (2003)
(unpublished summary order under Supreme Court Rule 23(c))), and a motion for leave to file a
successive postconviction petition which was denied, and we affirmed (see
People v. Williams
,
petition. In that motion, defendant alleged that his life sentence violated both the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution and the proportionate-penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const., 1970, art. I, § 11). He alleged specifically that a new substantive constitutional rule was adopted in recent years that required a trial court to first consider a defendant’s youth and its attendant characteristics before imposing a life sentence. As for cause for not raising the issue sooner, defendant alleged that not until 2016, in Montgomery v. Louisiana ,
[1] The trial court overlooked that a life sentence for defendant was mandatory because he murdered two individuals (730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(1)(c)(ii) (West 1996)); instead, the court made a finding that a discretionary life sentence was warranted because the offenses exhibited exceptionally brutal and heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty (see 730 ILCS 5/5-5- 3.2)(b)(2) (West 1996)).
577 U.S. ____, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016), did the United States Supreme Court apply the new substantive rule retroactively to state collateral proceedings. Regarding prejudice, defendant alleged that there was a reasonable probability that, under the new rule, his case would have resulted in a lesser sentence. Defendant included with his motion (1) his proposed successive petition; (2) his affidavit detailing his upbringing, personal trauma, gang influence, and rehabilitative progress while in prison, (3) the presentence investigation report (PSI) from the underlying case, (4) a psychological assessment, and (5) several articles about recent sentencing reforms related to youthful offenders.
¶ 6 The trial court found that defendant’s pleadings did not allege a claim of actual innocence or demonstrate cause or prejudice. The court did not elaborate on its ruling. The court denied defendant’s motion to reconsider, and defendant filed this timely appeal. II. ANALYSIS On appeal, defendant contends that he alleged sufficient cause and prejudice to be allowed
to file his successive postconviction petition. To that end, he asserts that he (1) alleged cause for not challenging his life sentence sooner, because the Supreme Court only recently allowed such sentencing challenges to be made retroactively in collateral proceedings; and (2) alleged prejudice, because consideration of his youth and its attendant characteristics would likely result in a sentence of less than life. The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2016)) offers a
procedural device by which a criminal defendant may assert that his conviction was based on a
substantial denial of his rights under the federal or state constitutions or both. 725 ILCS 5/122-
1(a)(1) (West 2016). Proceedings on a postconviction petition are collateral to proceedings in a
direct appeal and focus on constitutional claims that have not and could not have been previously
adjudicated.
People v. Holman
,
innocence or when he satisfies the cause-and-prejudice test.
Holman
,
460 (2012). However, that decision was not given retroactive application to state collateral proceedings until the Supreme Court’s decision in Montgomery . Thus, there was an objective factor external to the defense that impeded defendant’s ability to raise the claim any earlier. See People v. Lusby , 2020 IL 124046, ¶ 30 ( Miller ’s new substantive rule constitutes cause for successive petition). Similarly, defendant’s proportionate-penalties-clause claim could not have been raised in a previous petition, because it too is premised in significant part on Miller . Thus, defendant has established a prima facie showing of cause for filing a successive postconviction petition.
¶ 13 We note that the State suggests that defendant has not established cause, because his claim is essentially one of excessive sentencing, which could have been raised on direct appeal. We disagree. As discussed, defendant could not have raised his constitutional challenge to his sentence
until Miller was made retroactive. Of course, that did not occur until long after we disposed of his direct appeal. Because defendant’s constitutional challenge to his life sentence was other than a mere excessive-sentence claim and was not yet available when he was sentenced, he could not have raised it on direct appeal. We turn next to whether defendant alleged prejudice sufficient to allow him to file a
successive petition. He did. In addressing whether defendant alleged prejudice, we reiterate that he was required to
allege only a showing of prejudice. Whether a defendant has made that showing is
determined only from his pleadings and supporting documents.
Bailey
,
sentence, as well as a challenge under the proportionate-penalties clause of our state constitution.
In doing so, he asserted that, although he was 19 years old when he committed the offense, his
sentence is constitutionally infirm because the trial court failed to consider his youth and its
attendant characteristics before imposing a life sentence. See
Holman
, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 37
(citing
Miller
,
prima facie showing of prejudice. In support of his motion, he included his affidavit, in which he averred to numerous issues with his upbringing, trauma involving his mother’s death, gang influences on his life, and his rehabilitative progress in prison. Further, he submitted the PSI, a psychological assessment, and numerous articles regarding criminal justice reform of youthful offenders. Although ultimately defendant might not be able to establish his constitutional claims, he need not do so at this preliminary stage of the proceeding. He has made the required showing to allow him to file his successive postconviction petition.
[2] We note that the State, relying on
People v. Suggs
,
it sentenced him, the record from the sentencing hearing defeats his claims as a matter of law. We disagree. In Holman , our supreme court, in applying Miller retroactively, held that a sentence that
predated
Miller
might be constitutionally valid if the trial court considered evidence and argument
related to the
Miller
factors.
Lusby
,
factors that it considered. In doing so, the court clearly emphasized defendant’s conduct related to the offense. It also pointed to defendant’s lengthy criminal history, his conduct during the trial, and his behavior in jail. Thus, the court found that defendant was “one of the most dangerous antisocial individuals who has appeared before [it]” and was “without social redeeming value.” Although those considerations are among the Miller factors, the court never mentioned other Miller factors such as defendant’s young age, his family and home environment, his possible immaturity, impetuosity, or failure to appreciate the risks and consequences of his actions, or his rehabilitative potential. Indeed, the court never commented on defendant’s youth or any of its attendant characteristics. Accordingly, we cannot determine on the record that, in sentencing defendant, the court found that his youth and its attendant characteristics justified a sentence of life in prison. Thus, defendant must be given the opportunity to file his successive postconviction petition alleging that his life sentence, without proper consideration of his youth and its attendant characteristics, violated either the eighth amendment of the federal constitution or the proportionate-penalties clause of our state constitution. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago County
and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded.