Court Opinion

ID: 9409589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-18 19:07:27.778156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:51.699086
License: Public Domain

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) 220348-U

                                   Order filed July 18, 2023
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                     IN THE

                                     APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                               THIRD DISTRICT

                                                       2023

      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF                         )       Appeal from the Circuit Court
      ILLINOIS,                                          )       of the 12th Judicial Circuit,
                                                         )       Will County, Illinois,
              Plaintiff-Appellee,                        )
                                                         )       Appeal No. 3-22-0348
              v.                                         )       Circuit No. 01-CF-87
                                                         )
      IAN LOCKHART,                                      )       Honorable
                                                         )       David M. Carlson,
              Defendant-Appellant.                       )       Judge, Presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

            JUSTICE DAVENPORT delivered the judgment of the court.
            Presiding Justice Holdridge and Justice Peterson concurred in the judgment.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                   ORDER

¶1          Held: Defendant’s motion for leave to file a third successive postconviction petition was
                  properly denied.

¶2          Defendant, Ian Lockhart, appeals the circuit court’s denial of his motion for leave to file a

     successive postconviction petition challenging the constitutionality of his 57-year aggregate

     sentence, alleging his sentence violates both the eighth amendment to 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 affirm.
¶3                                           I. BACKGROUND

¶4          The evidence at trial established that on August 30, 2000, defendant, along with Keith

     Bland Jr. and Christopher Scott, went to the home of Keith’s stepmother, Delores Bland, for the

     purpose of determining when the home would be unoccupied and whether there were firearms

     inside to steal. The three men returned the following day to complete the robbery. Delores was

     found dead in her home later that night and three firearms, a VCR, and a television antenna were

     missing. Defendant was 24 years old at the time of the offense.

¶5          A jury convicted defendant of armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-2 (West 2000)), residential

     burglary (id. § 19-3), and felony murder (id. § 9-1(a)(2)). At sentencing, the court heard evidence

     in aggravation and mitigation. The State presented defendant’s criminal history, including two

     prior felonies and one conviction for retail theft. Defendant presented evidence that he was recently

     married, had no history of violence, and had obtained his general education diploma while

     incarcerated. The court merged the residential burglary count into the felony murder charge and

     sentenced defendant to a term of 41 years’ imprisonment. The court further sentenced defendant

     to a consecutive 16 years’ imprisonment for armed robbery.

¶6          On direct appeal, defendant challenged the admission of certain witness statements, alleged

     ineffective assistance of counsel, and attacked the severity of his sentence given his lack of violent

     history and evidence that he was not the shooter. We affirmed. People v. Lockhart, No. 3-03-0214

     (2005) (unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23). Thereafter, defendant filed

     several collateral attacks on his convictions under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725

     ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2022)). Defendant’s first postconviction petition alleged ineffective

     assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and insufficiency of the evidence. The circuit court

     summarily dismissed the petition, and we affirmed. People v. Lockhart, No. 3-06-0084 (2007)

                                                       2
     (unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23). Defendant subsequently sought leave

     to file two successive postconviction petitions. The circuit court denied defendant leave on both

     occasions, and we affirmed those decisions. People v. Lockhart, No. 3-09-0213 (2010)

     (unpublished dispositional order) (alleging a speedy trial violation); People v. Lockhart, No. 3-19-

     0208 (2020) (unpublished dispositional order) (alleging improper conduct on the part of the

     prosecution and ineffective assistance of trial counsel).

¶7          On July 25, 2022, defendant moved for leave to file a third successive postconviction

     petition, which is the subject of this appeal. In his motion, he alleged that his aggregate sentence

     of 57 years’ imprisonment amounts to an unconstitutional de facto life sentence based on the

     extension of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), to young adults, citing People v. House,

     2019 IL App (1st) 110580-B, and People v. Harris, 2018 IL 121932. He attached a study

     discussing the scientific rationale for expanding Miller’s reasoning to young adults up to the age

     of 25, an executive summary of a report from the National Task Force on Children Exposed to

     Violence, and an affidavit describing his own experiences prior to sentencing. The circuit court

     denied defendant’s motion for leave to file his third successive postconviction petition, and this

     appeal followed.

¶8                                             II. ANALYSIS

¶9          On appeal, defendant alleges the circuit court erred in denying him leave to file his third

     successive postconviction petition. Defendant states the claims raised in his petition meet the

     “cause and prejudice” requirements for filing a successive postconviction petition due to the

     unavailability of Miller at the time of his sentencing and subsequent postconviction filings. We

     review de novo the denial of a motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition. People

     v. Robinson, 2020 IL 123849, ¶ 39.

                                                      3
¶ 10          The purpose of the Act is to “allow inquiry into constitutional issues relating to the

       conviction or sentence that were not, and could not have been, determined on direct appeal.”

       People v. Barrow, 195 Ill. 2d 506, 519 (2001). According to the Act,

                              “(f) Only one petition may be filed by a petitioner under this Article without

                      leave of the court. Leave of court may be granted only if a petitioner demonstrates

                      cause for his or her failure to bring the claim in his or her initial post-conviction

                      proceedings and prejudice results from that failure. For purposes of this subsection

                      (f): (1) 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 post-conviction

                      proceedings; and (2) a prisoner shows prejudice by demonstrating that the claim

                      not raised during his or her initial post-conviction proceedings so infected the trial

                      that the resulting conviction or sentence violated due process.” 725 ILCS 5/122-

                      1(f) (West 2022).

¶ 11          Additionally, section 122-3 of the Act states that “[a]ny claim of substantial denial of

       constitutional rights not raised in the original or an amended petition is waived.” Id. § 122-3. The

       so-called “cause-and-prejudice test” described in section 122-1(f) is the “analytical tool that is to

       be used to determine whether fundamental fairness requires” an exception to the waiver

       requirements of section 122-3. People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444, 459 (2002). Defendant

       must make a prima facie showing of both cause and prejudice to survive the waiver provision of

       section 122-3 of the Act. People v. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 24. The circuit court determines

       whether defendant has made such a showing by conducting a preliminary screening to determine

       whether the motion adequately alleges facts that make a prima facie showing of cause and

       prejudice.

                                                        4
¶ 12          Defendant does not dispute the explicit holding in Miller applies exclusively to juveniles.

       Defendant contends, however, Miller’s underlying reasoning provides grounds for a constitutional

       challenge under both the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend.

       VIII) and the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I,

       § 11). Defendant argues that his young-adult brain functioned like that of a juvenile at the time of

       the offense, and that he was, therefore, entitled to the sentencing protections afforded to juveniles

       in Miller. Defendant asserts the cause for failing to raise this claim in previous postconviction

       petitions was the unavailability of Miller, and subsequent cases potentially extending its

       application to young adults serving de facto life sentences. See, e.g., People v. Thompson, 2015 IL

       118151, ¶¶ 8-13, 38, 44 (rejecting an as-applied constitutional challenge, but suggesting that the

       circuit court would be “the most appropriate tribunal” to address whether Miller applied to

       emerging adults); People v. Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶ 45 (suggesting that postconviction

       proceedings would provide the opportunity to develop a record sufficient to address an as-applied

       challenge to the constitutionality of a young adult defendant’s sentence).

¶ 13          Defendant acknowledges that our supreme court has previously addressed whether Miller’s

       unavailability provides cause for failing to raise this claim under the proportionate penalties clause

       in People v. Clark, 2023 IL 127273. In Clark, the court found that the unavailability of Miller and

       cases subsequently interpreting Miller did not provide cause for failing to raise a proportionate

       penalties claim in a successive petition because Miller did not apply to young adults. Id. ¶ 93. As

       such, the defendant in Clark “ ‘had the essential legal tools to raise his present proposed claim

       under the proportionate-penalties clause’ ” at the time he filed his previous petitions. Id. (quoting

       People v. Haines, 2021 IL App (4th) 190612, ¶ 49).

                                                         5
¶ 14          Since the filing of the instant appeal, our supreme court has issued a ruling in People v.

       Moore, 2023 IL 126461, which expands upon Clark and directly resolves the issue of whether

       Miller’s unavailability at the time of sentencing and in subsequent postconviction proceedings

       satisfies the cause requirement of section 122-1(f) under either the eighth amendment or the

       proportionate penalties clause. In Moore, the court consolidated two pending appeals, those of

       Tony Moore and Marvin Williams. Moore and Williams were both 19 years old at the time they

       committed murder, and each appealed from judgments denying them leave to file successive

       postconviction petitions challenging their life sentences based on the unavailability of Miller at the

       time of their sentencing. Id. ¶ 1. The court in Moore clarified that Miller “did not change the law

       applicable to discretionary sentences imposed on young adult offenders.” Id. ¶ 44. Since Miller

       does not apply to young adults, it does not provide cause for a young adult to raise a claim under

       either the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution or the eighth amendment to the

       United States Constitution. Id. ¶¶ 38-40.

¶ 15          As in Clark and Moore, defendant in this case was over 18 years old at the time he

       committed the offense. While defendant argues his brain development was that of a juvenile at the

       time he committed the offense, he did not raise this issue on direct appeal, in his initial

       postconviction petition, or in his first two motions for leave to file successive postconviction

       petitions. At the time of his sentencing, Illinois recognized the special status of young adults,

       especially those subject to adverse influences. Miller and subsequent cases created no

       constitutionally significant changes to that recognition. Id. ¶ 42. As both Clark and Moore

       specifically held that young adults cannot establish cause—based on Miller’s unavailability—

       under the cause and prejudice test, the circuit court properly denied defendant’s motion.

                                                         6
¶ 16          Because we find that defendant is unable to demonstrate cause as required by section 122-

       1(f) of the Act, we need not determine whether defendant can establish prejudice. See id.

       Consequently, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of defendant’s motion for leave to file a third

       successive postconviction petition.

¶ 17                                          III. CONCLUSION

¶ 18          For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Will County.

¶ 19          Affirmed.

                                                       7