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) 190752-U

Order filed August 7, 2023

____________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

2023 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

ILLINOIS, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

LEE K. NEWSOM, ) 

 ) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of the 12th Judicial Circuit, 

Will County, Illinois. 

Appeal No. 3-19-0752 

Circuit No. 94-CF-3739 

The Honorable

Vincent F. Cornelius, 

Judge, presiding.

____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE McDADE1 delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices Brennan and Hettel concurred in the judgment.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The circuit court did not err when it denied the defendant leave to file a 

successive postconviction petition, as he could not establish cause for 

failing to bring his youth-based challenge to his sentences earlier.

¶ 2 In 1995, pursuant to a partially negotiated plea agreement, the defendant, Lee K. 

Newsom, pled guilty to two counts of first degree murder and was sentenced to concurrent 

1 This case was administratively reassigned to Justice McDade, Justice Brennan, and Justice 

Hettel on December 22, 2022. The current panel has read the briefs and listened to the recording of the 

oral argument.
2 

natural life sentences. In 2019, Newsom filed a motion for leave to file a successive 

postconviction petition, alleging that his natural life sentences violated the proportionate 

penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. X, § Y) and the eighth 

amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. VIII) because his youth and 

attendant circumstances had not been considered. The circuit court denied leave, and Newsom 

appealed. On appeal, he argues that the circuit court erred when it denied him leave to file his 

successive petition. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In 1994, Newsom shot and killed his parents. He was 20 years old at the time. In 1995, he 

pled guilty to two counts of first degree murder in exchange for the State agreeing not to seek the 

death penalty. Ultimately, the circuit court sentenced Newsom to concurrent natural life 

sentences. Newsom did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea or file an appeal.

¶ 5 In 2001, Newsom filed a postconviction petition in which he alleged his sentences 

violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The circuit court summarily dismissed 

Newsom’s petition, and this court affirmed the circuit court’s decision on appeal. People v. 

Newsom, No. 3-01-0746 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

¶ 6 In 2019, Newsom filed a motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition. 

The successive petition alleged that his natural life sentences violated the proportionate penalties 

clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. 1, § 11) and the eighth amendment to the 

United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. VIII) because his youth and attendant 

circumstances had not been considered. The circuit court denied leave, ruling that while he 

showed cause for failing to raise the issue earlier, he could not establish prejudice. In so ruling, 

the court only addressed Newsom’s claim regarding the eighth amendment. 
3 

¶ 7 Newsom appealed.

¶ 8 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 9 On appeal, Newsom argues that the circuit court erred when it denied him leave to file his 

successive postconviction petition. He alleges that he satisfied the cause-and-prejudice test 

applicable to the decision of whether to grant leave; specifically, he asserts that the cases 

supporting his youth-based challenge to his sentences were not decided until more than 10 years 

after he filed his initial postconviction petition. Notably, Newsom only challenges the denial of 

his petition for leave with respect to his proportionate penalties claim under the Illinois 

Constitution.2

¶ 10 The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) contemplates the filing of only one 

postconviction petition. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2018). A defendant may not file a successive 

petition unless he or she first obtains leave of court to do so, which requires the defendant to 

satisfy the cause-and-prejudice test. Id. “[A] prisoner shows cause by identifying an objective 

factor that impeded his or her ability to raise a specific claim during his or her initial postconviction proceedings.” Id.; see also People v. Jackson, 2021 IL 124818, ¶ 30 (holding that 

“[t]o establish ‘cause,’ petitioner must show some objective factor external to the defense that 

impeded his ability to raise the claim in his initial postconviction proceeding”). “[A] prisoner 

shows prejudice by demonstrating that the claim not raised during his or her initial postconviction proceedings so infected the trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violated due 

process.” Id. This court reviews the circuit court’s decision to deny leave to file a successive 

postconviction petition de novo. People v. Lusby, 2020 IL 124046, ¶ 27.

2 We note that our supreme court has expressly held that the protections extended to individuals 

under age 18 by Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S 460 (2012), do not extend beyond age 18 in the eighth 

amendment context. People v. Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶ 61. 
4 

¶ 11 Significantly, the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution provides 

broader protections than the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution. People v. 

Clemons, 2012 IL 107821, ¶ 40. Accordingly, a postconviction defendant can raise a youthbased, as-applied constitutional challenge to his or her sentence under the proportionate penalties 

clause based on the evolving science related to juvenile maturity and brain development. See, 

e.g., People v. House, 2021 IL 125124, ¶ 31-32; Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶¶ 46-48; People v. 

Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶ 44.

¶ 12 In support of his claim, Newsom cites extensively to People v. Daniels, 2020 IL App 

(1st) 171738. In that case, Daniels pled guilty in 1995 to first degree murder in exchange for the 

State agreeing to not to seek the death penalty. Id. ¶ 5. He was sentenced to natural life. Id. In 

2010, the circuit court denied Daniels leave to file a successive postconviction petition in which 

he raised a youth-based challenge to his natural life sentence. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. On appeal, the First 

District held, in relevant part, that it was “premature at this early juncture to find that [Daniels’] 

claim fails as a matter of law or that his petition and supporting documentation [were] 

insufficient to justify further proceedings.” Id. ¶ 34. Thus, the First District reversed and 

remanded for further proceedings. Id. ¶ 36. 

¶ 13 In 2021, our supreme court undercut Daniels, clarifying that the unavailability of Miller

or the cases that have followed it cannot establish cause for a successive postconviction petition 

that raises a youth-based challenge to a sentence under the proportionate penalties clause. People 

v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74. The Dorsey court stated: “Illinois courts have long recognized 

the differences between persons of mature age and those who are minors for purposes of 

sentencing. Thus, Miller’s unavailability prior to 2012 at best deprived defendant of ‘some 

helpful support’ for his state constitutional law claim, which is insufficient to establish ‘cause.’ ” 
5 

Id.; cf. People v. Guerrero, 2012 IL 112020, ¶ 20 (holding that “the lack of precedent for a 

position differs from ‘cause’ for failing to raise an issue, and a defendant must raise the issue, 

even when the law is against him, in order to preserve it for review”). Since Dorsey was decided, 

our supreme court has reaffirmed and strengthened its holding in People v. Clark, 2023 IL 

127273, ¶¶ 61-62 (reaffirming Dorsey and extending its reasoning to a defendant who raised a 

proportionate penalties clause challenge based on intellectual disabilities), and People v. Moore, 

2023 IL 126461, ¶ 40 (holding that because “Miller does not directly apply to young adults, it 

also does not provide cause for a young adult offender to raise a claim under the proportionate 

penalties clause”). Thus, we are compelled by Dorsey and its progeny to hold that Newsom

cannot rely on citation to Miller and its progeny to establish cause for failing to bring his youthbased challenge to his sentence earlier.

¶ 14 For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Newsom’s petition for leave to file a successive 

postconviction petition did not satisfy the cause prong of section 122-1(f) of the Act. 

Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court did not err when it denied his motion for leave to file 

a successive postconviction petition.

¶ 15 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 16 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed. 

¶ 17 Affirmed.