People v. Wilson

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except
in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
2023 IL App (3d) 200181-UB
Order filed August 30, 2023
____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2023
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) of the 21st Judicial Circuit,
) Kankakee County, Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Appeal No. 3-20-0181
v. ) Circuit No. 09-CF-426
)
MICHAEL WILSON, ) Honorable
) Kathy S. Bradshaw- Elliott,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE HETTEL delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices McDade and Brennan concurred in the judgment.
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: The court properly denied defendant leave to file a successive postconviction
petition.
¶2 Defendant, Michael Wilson, appealed the Kankakee County circuit court’s denial of his
motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition in which he argued that his de facto
life sentence was unconstitutional under the eighth amendment of the United States Constitution
(U.S. Const., amend. VIII) and the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill.
Const. 1970, art. I, § 11. We agreed with defendant’s contention that the court erred by finding
that defendant did not satisfy the cause and prejudice with respect to his eighth amendment claim
and reversed the court’s denial of defendant’s motion with respect to that claim. People v.
Wilson, 2021 IL App (3d) 200181-U, ¶ 16, rev’d, 2023 IL 127666. However, the Supreme Court
disagreed, reversing our decision and directing us to consider defendant’s proportionate penalties
claim on remand. People v. Wilson, 2023 IL 127666, ¶ 44. We do so now and affirm the trial
court’s denial of defendant’s motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 The State filed a juvenile petition against defendant, who was 14 years old. The State’s
petition alleged that defendant had committed first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (a)(2),
(a)(3) (West 2008)), and armed robbery (id. § 18-2(a)). Subsequently, the court granted the
State’s motion to transfer defendant’s case to criminal court, and a grand jury indicted defendant
with the charges alleged in the juvenile petition. The cause proceeded to a jury trial.
¶5 The trial evidence established that on December 27, 2008, the date of the alleged murder,
defendant was 14 years old. On that date, Ryan Graefnitz approached defendant and Byron
Moore and asked if they knew where to purchase cocaine. Defendant indicated that he did.
Defendant and Moore left in a vehicle with Graefnitz and two other individuals. Following
defendant’s directions, they arrived at an apartment building. Defendant, Moore, and Graefnitz
exited the vehicle and entered the apartment building. An individual announced that a robbery
was about to occur, and then several gunshots were fired. Witnesses observed Graefnitz exit the
building and collapse, and defendant and Moore fled the scene. After fleeing, defendant told a
friend that he shot a man he wanted to rob. Later, an autopsy confirmed that Graefnitz died from
gunshot related injuries.
2
¶6 The jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder and the lesser included offense of
attempted armed robbery. Additionally, the jury found that defendant did not personally
discharge the weapon. In anticipation of sentencing, the court ordered a presentence investigation
report (PSI).
¶7 During the sentencing hearing, the court considered defendant’s 200-page PSI that
revealed: (1) defendant’s upbringing in the Department of Children and Family Services; (2)
defendant’s premature delivery and prenatal exposure to cocaine and amphetamines; (3)
defendant’s behavioral and learning disabilities, which caused him to be placed in special
education programs; (4) school records showing defendant’s many school suspensions for his
noncompliance and aggressive behavior; (5) defendant’s alcohol and daily marijuana use since
the age of 13; (6) defendant’s failure to complete outpatient or residential drug abuse treatment;
(7) defendant’s prior convictions for criminal damage and criminal trespass to property; and (8)
defendant’s poor behavior in the juvenile detention center following those convictions. The court
also considered the parties’ evidence in aggravation and mitigation, a victim impact statement,
and defendant’s statement in allocution. The court explained that it considered the particular
facts of the case and acknowledged defendant’s troubled history and developmental problems.
¶8 Further, the court noted that defendant was “only 14 years of age” when he committed
the offenses. The court reflected that defendant was “young,” but it believed that he was “a
danger to society” and was unsure of his ability to be rehabilitated. The court sentenced
defendant to 55 years’ imprisonment for first degree murder and a consecutive term of 4 years’
imprisonment for attempted armed robbery. On direct appeal, we affirmed defendant’s
convictions. People v. Wilson, 2015 IL App (3d) 130606-U, ¶ 69. The summary dismissal of
3
defendant’s postconviction petition was also affirmed on appeal. People v. Wilson, 2019 IL App
(3d) 160679-U, ¶ 24.
¶9 On March 27, 2020, defendant filed a motion for leave to file a successive postconviction
petition alleging a Miller claim under the eighth amendment and proportionate penalties clause.
Defendant asserted that People v. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶ 42, satisfied the cause requirement
where it provided a “new substantive constitutional rule,” not available to him in his initial
postconviction petition. Defendant reasoned that Buffer allowed him to challenge his juvenile
de facto life sentence. Also, defendant asserted that he established prejudice, requiring a new
sentencing hearing where the court could consider the Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 477-78
(2012) factors. The court denied defendant’s motion. Defendant appealed.
¶ 10 On appeal, we found that defendant established the requisite cause and prejudice for his
eighth amendment claim, reversing the circuit court’s denial of his successive postconviction
petition and remanding for resentencing. People v. Wilson, 2021 IL App (3d) 200181-U, ¶ 16,
rev’d, 2023 IL 127666. Having granted defendant relief under the eighth amendment, we did not
address defendant’s proportionate penalties clause argument. Id.¶ 11 Thereafter, our supreme court considered defendant’s eighth amendment claim, finding
that defendant failed to establish prejudice. People v. Wilson, 2023 IL 127666, ¶ 44. In doing so,
the court relied on Jones v. Mississippi, 593 U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 1307 (2021), explaining that
Miller did not impose the requirement that the circuit court specifically find, on the record or
implicitly, permanent incorrigibility in order to sentence a juvenile to life imprisonment. Wilson,
2023 IL 127666, ¶¶ 35-36, 38. Moreover, the court stated that “ ‘no viable Miller claim exists,
“so long as the sentence is not mandatory—that is [ ] so long as the sentencer has discretion to
consider the mitigating qualities of youth and impose a lesser punishment.” ’ ” Id. ¶ 40 (quoting
4
Commonwealth v. Felder, 269 A.3d 1232, 1243 (Pa. 2022), quoting Jones, 593 U.S. at ___, 141
S. Ct. at 1314). Because defendant was “sentenced under a sentencing scheme that granted the
sentencing court the discretion to consider [defendant’s] youth and attendant circumstances and
to impose less than de facto life sentence,” and the court expressly acknowledged and did not
explicitly refuse to consider the PSI, which contained extensive information regarding
defendant’s youth, defendant received the constitutionally required procedure under Miller and
cannot establish prejudice. Id. ¶ 44. Thus, the supreme court reversed our decision and remanded
directing us to consider whether defendant satisfied the cause and prejudice test with respect to
his claim under the proportionate penalties clause. Id. ¶ 48. We now address that issue.
¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 13 The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2018)) permits a
criminal defendant to challenge the proceedings which resulted in his conviction by asserting
that “there was a substantial denial of his or her rights under the Constitution of the United States
or of the State of Illinois or both.” Id. § 122-1(a)(1). The Act contemplates the filing of a single
postconviction petition. People v. Robinson, 2020 IL 123849, ¶ 42. A defendant must obtain
leave of court to file a successive postconviction petition. People v. Wrice, 2012 IL 111860, ¶ 47;
Robinson, 2020 IL 123849, ¶ 43; 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2018). To obtain leave, the
defendant must allege either “cause and prejudice for the failure to assert a postconviction claim
in an earlier proceeding” or a claim of actual innocence. Robinson, 2020 IL 123849, ¶ 42.
¶ 14 The supreme court stated in People v. Clark, 2023 IL 127273, that “ ‘ Miller’s
announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for
a [juvenile offender] to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause.’ ” Id. ¶ 61 (quoting
People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74). The supreme court reasoned that “long before Miller,
5
Illinois law recognized the special status of juvenile offenders for purposes of applying the
principles under the proportionate penalties clause.” Id. Similar to Miller, Buffer’s unavailability
in the present case, “does nothing to explain why in this successive postconviction proceeding
defendant neglected to raise the proportionate penalties clause claim” in his direct appeal or prior
postconviction petition. See Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74. Defendant failed to provide any other
compelling reason for failing to raise his proportionate penalties clause claim on direct appeal or
in his original postconviction petition. Therefore, we find that defendant has not established the
cause required to satisfy the cause and prejudice test as it applies to his proportionate penalties
claim. We affirm the circuit court’s denial of defendant’s motion for leave to file a successive
postconviction petition.
¶ 15 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 16 The judgment of the circuit court of Kankakee County is affirmed.
¶ 17 Affirmed.
6