People v. Williams , 2020 IL App (2d) 180526-U ( 2020 )

2020 IL App (2d) 180526-UNo. 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
¶1 Held: The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for leave to file a successive
postconviction petition where defendant made a prima facie 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.
¶2 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.
2020 IL App (2d) 180526-U¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 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(unpublished summary order under Supreme Court Rule 23(c))), and a motion for leave to file a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,
2012 IL App (2d) 110539-U).
¶5 On January 6, 2017, defendant filed a motion for leave to file a successive postconviction
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)).
-2-
2020 IL App (2d) 180526-U577 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.
¶7 II. ANALYSIS
¶8 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.
¶9 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
-3-
2020 IL App (2d) 180526-Uadjudicated. People v. Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 25. The Act contemplates the filing of a single
petition. 725 ILCS 5/122-3 (West 2016). Because successive petitions impede the finality of
criminal litigation, the statutory bar to multiple petitions will be relaxed only when fundamental
fairness so requires. Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 25.
¶ 10 Generally, there are two instances that qualify: when a defendant raises a claim of actual
innocence or when he satisfies the cause-and-prejudice test. Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 26. To
establish cause, a defendant must show some objective factor external to the defense that impeded
his ability to raise the claim in the initial postconviction proceeding. Holman, 2017 IL 120655,
¶ 26. To establish prejudice, a defendant must show that the claimed constitutional error so
infected the proceeding that the result violated due process. Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 26. In
considering a motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition, the trial court conducts
a preliminary screening to determine whether the motion adequately alleges facts that make a
prima facie showing of cause and prejudice. People v. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 24. Because
there is no provision for an evidentiary hearing on the cause-and-prejudice issue, the determination
is based only on the pleadings and supporting documents submitted by defendant and is made
before the first stage of postconviction proceedings. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶¶ 23-24. The State
is not permitted to participate at the cause-and-prejudice stage. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 24. We
review de novo the denial of leave to file a successive petition. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 13.
¶ 11 We first address whether defendant alleged adequate cause for not raising in a previous
petition his constitutional challenges to his life sentence. He did.
¶ 12 Defendant’s eighth amendment claim depends in large part on Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S.
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
-4-
2020 IL App (2d) 180526-Ufactor 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.
¶ 14 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.
¶ 15 We turn next to whether defendant alleged prejudice sufficient to allow him to file a
successive petition. He did.
¶ 16 In addressing whether defendant alleged prejudice, we reiterate that he was required to
allege only a prima facie showing of prejudice. Whether a defendant has made that showing is
determined only from his pleadings and supporting documents. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 24.
The trial court should deny the motion for leave to file a successive petition only when it is clear
from a review of the pleadings and supporting documents that defendant’s claims fail as a matter
of law or where the successive petition and its supporting documents are insufficient to justify
further proceedings. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 21.
-5-
2020 IL App (2d) 180526-U¶ 17 Here, defendant brought in his petition an as-applied eighth-amendment challenge to his
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, 567 U.S. at 489). Of course, to establish prejudice in that regard, defendant must
show is that the claimed error denied him due process. 2
¶ 18 Undoubtedly, at this preliminary stage of the proceedings, defendant has made a
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 prima facie
showing to allow him to file his successive postconviction petition.
2
We note that the State, relying on People v. Suggs, 2020 IL App (2d) 170632, contends
that the Miller analysis does not apply to “this adult defendant.” However, Suggs noted that Miller
did not apply to a 23-year-old defendant. Suggs, 2020 IL App (2d) 170632, ¶¶ 33-35. In doing
so, this court recognized that Miller has been extended to young adults between the ages of 18 and
21. Suggs, 2020 IL App (2d) 170632, ¶ 33. Thus, Suggs does not preclude application of Miller
to this 19-year-old defendant.
-6-
2020 IL App (2d) 180526-U¶ 19 The State contends, however, that, because the trial court considered defendant’s age when
it sentenced him, the record from the sentencing hearing defeats his claims as a matter of law. We
disagree.
¶ 20 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, 2020 IL 124046, ¶ 35 (citing Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 47).
The Miller factors, set out in Holman, were designed to determine whether a juvenile defendant’s
conduct showed irretrievable depravity, permanent incorrigibility, or irreparable corruption
beyond the possibility of rehabilitation such that the defendant could be sentenced to life without
parole. Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 46. The court may make that determination only after
considering the defendant’s youth and its attendant characteristics. Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 46.
Those characteristics include, but are not limited to, the following factors: (1) the defendant’s
chronological age at the time of the offense and any evidence of his particular immaturity,
impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences; (2) the juvenile defendant’s family
and home environment; (3) the juvenile defendant’s degree of participation in the homicide and
any evidence of familial or peer pressures that may have affected him: (4) the juvenile defendant’s
incompetence, including his inability to deal with police officers or prosecutors and his incapacity
to assist his own attorney; and (5) the juvenile defendant’s prospects for rehabilitation. Holman,
2017 IL 120655, ¶ 46.
¶ 21 Here, when the trial court imposed the life sentence without parole, it noted the various
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
-7-
2020 IL App (2d) 180526-Uantisocial 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.
¶ 22 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 23 For the reasons stated, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago County
and remand for further proceedings.
¶ 24 Reversed and remanded.
-8-