Court Opinion

ID: 9398325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 20:08:31.423602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:32.786105
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 220483-U
                                                                               FIRST DISTRICT,
                                                                               FIRST DIVISION
                                                                               May 30, 2023

                                              No. 1-22-0483

     NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in
     limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
     _____________________________________________________________________________

                                         IN THE
                             APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
     _____________________________________________________________________________

                                                   )      Appeal from the
      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
                                                   )      Circuit Court of
                                                   )      Cook County, Illinois.
                              Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                   )
      v.
                                                   )      No. 09 CR 08815
                                                   )
      D’ANDRE HOWARD,
                                                   )      Honorable
                                                   )      Marc W. Martin,
                              Defendant-Appellant.
                                                   )      Judge Presiding.
     _____________________________________________________________________________

            JUSTICE COGHLAN delivered the judgment of the court.
            Presiding Justice Lavin concurred in the judgment.
            Justice Pucinski specially concurred.

                                                 ORDER

¶1          Held: The circuit court properly denied defendant’s motion for leave to file a successive
                  postconviction petition where he failed to establish cause for failing to bring his
                  proportionate penalties claim in his initial postconviction petition.

¶2          Following a jury trial, defendant D’Andre Howard was convicted of three counts of first

     degree murder and one count of attempt first degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to three

     concurrent natural life sentences for first degree murder consecutive to 60 years’ imprisonment

     for attempt first degree murder. Defendant’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. People

     v. Howard, 2018 IL App (1st) 142401-U, ¶ 2. The denial of defendant’s initial postconviction
     No. 1-22-0483

     petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2018))

     was also affirmed on appeal. People v. Howard, 2021 IL App (1st) 191329-U, ¶ 2.

¶3          Defendant sought leave to file a successive postconviction petition, challenging his

     sentences under 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. 1, §

     11). The circuit court denied defendant’s motion for leave to file a successive postconviction

     petition. We affirm.

¶4                                             BACKGROUND

¶5          Defendant was convicted of first degree murder of Alan Engelhardt, Laura Engelhardt,

     and Marlene Gacek, and attempt first degree murder of Shelly Engelhardt. The facts of this case

     are fully set forth in this court’s order on direct appeal. See Howard, 2018 IL App (1st) 142401-

     U, ¶¶ 20-68. We recount only the facts necessary to resolve the instant appeal.

¶6          The evidence at trial showed that on April 17, 2009, defendant stabbed four family

     members of his then-fiancée, Amanda Engelhardt: her father, Alan; her mother, Shelly; her

     sister, Laura; and her grandmother, Marlene. At the time of these offenses, defendant and

     Amanda were living together in an apartment with their baby daughter. After arguing throughout

     the day on April 16, 2009, defendant called Amanda’s parents and told them to come and get her.

     Shortly thereafter, Amanda, her parents, and the baby returned to the Engelhardt’s house.

     Defendant later arrived at the house to talk to Amanda, and they agreed to separate. Amanda told

     defendant she was tired, and he agreed to let himself out and go home.

¶7          Amanda later awoke to defendant holding a kitchen knife to her throat. Defendant led her

     to the den, where Shelly was knitting. Defendant tied Amanda and Shelly together around their

     chests, wrists, and necks and went upstairs. He came back to the den with Laura and “[h]ogtied”

                                                      -2-
       No. 1-22-0483

       her. When defendant untied Laura, she grabbed the knife and stabbed him in the arm. As they

       struggled over the knife, defendant stabbed Laura multiple times. He also stabbed Shelly (who

       was still tied up) and Marlene and Alan (who had come downstairs to see what was happening).

       Laura, Marlene, and Alan died from the injuries inflicted by defendant.

¶8            At trial, defendant raised the affirmative defense of insanity, presented the testimony of

       various mental health professionals, and testified concerning his mental state leading up to, and

       during, the attacks. The jury found defendant guilty of the murders of Laura, Marlene, and Alan,

       and the attempt murder of Shelly.

¶9            The presentence investigation report (PSI) reflected that defendant was 20 years and 11

       months old at the time of the crimes. 1 At defendant’s July 9, 2014 sentencing hearing, the State

       introduced the victim impact statements of Shelly and her son, Jeff Engelhardt. In mitigation,

       defense counsel presented a 90-page “sentencing packet,” which included information

       concerning defendant’s history of placements within the Illinois Department of Children and

       Family Services (DCFS) and interviews with various acquaintances of defendant. Counsel

       argued that “the mitigation on behalf of [defendant] is overwhelming,” based on defendant’s

       history of mental illness, abuse, neglect, trauma, and DCFS involvement.

¶ 10          After considering the victim impact statements, the statutory factors in aggravation and

       mitigation, the PSI, and the “sentencing packet of materials presented by the defense,” the trial

       court found that “none” of the statutory factors in mitigation were applicable. The court imposed

       three mandatory concurrent natural life terms for each murder (see 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1 (c) (ii)

       (West 2014)) and a consecutive 60-year sentence for attempt murder. The court found that

       defendant’s conduct caused serious harm and that a maximum extended term sentence was

              1
                  Defendant “refused to answer any questions” when interviewed for the PSI.
                                                         -3-
       No. 1-22-0483

       “necessary to deter others from committing the same crime.” See 730 ILCS 5/5-8-4(d) (1); 730

       ILCS 5/5-5-3.2(1), (7) (West 2014). Defendant’s motion to reconsider sentence alleged that the

       trial court “erred in failing to give adequate consideration to mitigating factors, such as the

       defendant’s history of abuse, neglect, and mental illness, his history as a ward of DCFS, [and] his

       history of foster care placements.” The trial court denied the motion. The judgment of the circuit

       court was affirmed on direct appeal. Howard, 2018 IL App (1st) 142401-U, ¶ 2.

¶ 11          On February 22, 2019, defendant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, arguing

       that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate defendant’s fitness and competency for

       trial and for failing to present expert testimony to support his insanity defense. This court

       affirmed the judgment of the circuit court summarily dismissing the petition. Howard, 2021 IL

       App (1st) 191329-U, ¶ 2.

¶ 12          On December 8, 2021, defendant filed a motion for leave to file a successive postconviction

       petition. Defendant argued that his sentence violated the eighth amendment to the United States

       Constitution and the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution. Although he was

       20 years and 11 months old when the crimes were committed, he claimed that he was “the

       functional equivalent of a juvenile” due to his “youth[,] *** mental health issues, lack of proper

       childhood development, and trauma.” A report prepared by developmental psychologist Dr. James

       Garbarino on November 17, 2021 was attached to defendant’s petition. Defendant asserted that the

       report constituted “newly discovered evidence” that defendant’s development “could have

       influenced [his] actions” in committing the crimes.

¶ 13          In denying leave to file the successive petition, the circuit court held that Miller claims “do

       not apply to defendants over the age of 18 at the time of the offense” and that defendant was unable

       to establish cause for his proportionate penalties claim based on People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010.

                                                       -4-
       No. 1-22-0483

       See id. ¶ 74 (holding that “Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth

       amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate

       penalties clause”). The court found that “the original sentencing and the direct appeal in this case

       occurred after Miller,” but defendant failed to raise his claim on direct appeal or in his initial

       postconviction petition. The court also found that Dr. Garbarino’s report is not “new” evidence

       because “the evidence upon which it was based was available at the time of the original sentencing”

       and was presented in mitigation.

¶ 14                                               ANALYSIS

¶ 15          The Act provides a remedy for criminal defendants whose federal or state constitutional

       rights were substantially violated at trial or sentencing. People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444,

       455 (2002). The Act contemplates the filing of only one postconviction petition without leave of

       court. People v. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 35; 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2020). While

       successive postconviction petitions are “highly disfavored” (Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 39), leave

       of court may be granted if a defendant shows both “cause” and “prejudice.” (725 ILCS 5/122-

       1(f)). “Cause” is “an objective factor that impeded [the defendant’s] *** ability to raise a specific

       claim” during his initial postconviction proceedings. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f). “Prejudice” is

       established when the claim not raised “so infected the trial that the resulting conviction or

       sentence violated due process.” Id. A defendant must make a prima facie showing of cause and

       prejudice. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 24. We review the denial of defendant’s motion for leave to

       file a successive postconviction petition de novo. Id. ¶ 13.

¶ 16          Defendant’s proportionate penalties claim is premised on the principles adopted in Miller

       v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). In Miller, the Supreme Court held that “mandatory life without

       parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s

                                                       -5-
       No. 1-22-0483

       prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’ ”Miller, 567 U.S. at 465. Under Miller, the

       sentencing court must “take into account how children are different, and how those differences

       counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.” Id. at 480.

¶ 17           Although Miller only applies directly to those under the age of 18 at the time of the

       offense (see People v. Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶ 58), our supreme court has held that “[b]y way

       of the proportionate penalties clause, *** young adults may rely on the evolving neuroscience

       and societal standards underlying the rule in Miller to support an as-applied challenge to a life

       sentence” under the Act. People v. Walker, 2022 IL App (1st) 201151, ¶ 27; see People v.

       Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶ 44; see also Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶ 48. The proportionate

       penalties clause provides that “[a]ll penalties shall be determined both according to the

       seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship.”

       Ill. Const. 1970, art. 1, § 11. A sentence violates the proportionate penalties clause if it is “cruel,

       degrading, or so wholly disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the

       community.” People v. Miller, 202 Ill. 2d 328, 338 (2002).

¶ 18           Defendant argues that he established cause for failing to bring his proportionate penalties

       claim in his initial postconviction petition because “science and case law dealing with the still-

       developing brains of emerging adults is new and evolving and thus it is proper to bring such

       claims now.” However, the “science and case law” upon which defendant relies had already

       evolved by 2019, when defendant’s initial postconviction petition was filed. See Miller, 567 U.S.

       at 465; Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶ 44 (recognizing that a 19-year-old defendant is “not

       necessarily foreclosed” from raising as-applied challenge to sentence under the Act); Harris,

       2018 IL 121932, ¶ 48 (18-year-old defendant’s as-applied claim could be raised in a separate

       proceeding under the Act).

                                                        -6-
       No. 1-22-0483

¶ 19          Regardless, based on People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74, the unavailability of Miller

       and its progeny does not provide defendants with cause to raise a claim under the proportionate

       penalties clause. In Dorsey, our supreme court reiterated that “Illinois courts have long

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

       of sentencing.” Id. The unavailability of Miller “at best deprived defendant ‘of some helpful

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

¶ 20          Defendant’s argument that Dorsey’s holding does “not apply to emerging adult cases”

       (because the defendant in Dorsey was a juvenile at the time of the crime) is foreclosed by our

       supreme court’s recent decisions in People v. Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶¶ 92-93, and People v.

       Moore, 2023 IL 126461, ¶ 42. 2 In Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶¶ 26, 93, the defendant sought leave

       to file an as-applied proportionate penalties claim challenging his 90-year de facto life sentence

       for a crime he committed at the age of 24. The court held that defendant failed to show cause,

       reaffirming its holding “in Dorsey that ‘Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under

       the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the

       proportionate penalties clause’ in a successive postconviction petition.” Id. ¶ 92.

¶ 21          The Clark court found that the “same reasoning” in Dorsey applied to the 24-year-old

       defendant because, “[a]s is the case with juvenile offenders, Illinois courts were also aware that

       ‘less than mature age can extend into young adulthood—and they have insisted that sentences

       take into account that reality of human development.’ ” Id. ¶ 93 (quoting People v. Haines, 2021

       IL App (4th) 190612, ¶ 47 (citing People v. Maldonado, 240 Ill. App. 3d (1992); People v.

       Center, 198 Ill. App. 3d 1025 (1990); People v. Adams, 8 Ill. App. 3d 9 (1972))). Since “Miller

              2
                People v. Clark, 2023 IL 127273 and People v. Moore, 2023 IL 126461 were decided after this
       case was fully briefed.
                                                        -7-
       No. 1-22-0483

       does not present new proportionate penalties clause principles with respect to discretionary

       sentencing of young adult offenders,” defendant “ ‘had the essential legal tools to raise his

       present proposed claim under the proportionate penalties clause’ when he filed his previous

       postconviction petitions.’ ” Id. (quoting Haines, 2021 IL App (4th) 190612, ¶ 49).

¶ 22          Our supreme court reiterated these principles in Moore, 2023 IL 126461, ¶¶ 40-42. There,

       the court consolidated the appeals of two defendants, Moore and Williams. Both defendants

       sought leave to file successive postconviction petitions, raising as-applied proportionate penalties

       challenges to their discretionary natural life sentences for murders they committed when they

       were 19 years old. Id. ¶¶ 1, 15, 25. The court found that the “evidence and argument raised at the

       sentencing hearings for both Moore and Williams show the parties knew Illinois law recognized

       the special status of young adults, especially those subject to adverse influences, for purposes of

       applying the principles of the proportionate penalties clause.” Id. ¶ 42. Relying on Clark, the

       court held that because “Miller did not change the law applicable to young adults, it does not

       provide cause for the proportionate penalties challenges advanced” in defendants’ proposed

       successive postconviction petitions. Id.

¶ 23          Consistent with Clark and Moore, this court has repeatedly applied Dorsey’s holding to

       young adult offenders. See, e.g., Walker, 2022 IL App (1st) 201151, ¶ 29 (it follows that “our

       supreme court’s recent acceptance that Miller may apply to young adults in certain

       circumstances does not provide cause for a young adult’s successive petition either”); People v.

       French, 2022 IL App (1st) 220122, ¶ 29 (rejecting defendant’s argument that Dorsey’s holding

       did not apply to young adult defendants); People v. Walsh, 2022 IL App (1st) 210786, ¶ 33

       (where “cause has been fully litigated ***, this court has universally applied the holding in

       Dorsey to conclude that cause has not been established based on the prior unavailability of Miller

                                                       -8-
       No. 1-22-0483

       and its progeny”). Based on Dorsey, Clark, and Moore, defendant is unable to establish cause for

       failing to raise his proportionate penalties claim in his initial postconviction petition.

¶ 24          Defendant further asserts that “Dr. Garbarino’s report constituted cause to bring this

       claim now,” claiming that it would have been “unfair” to require him to obtain an expert report

       “within 18 months of Harris being issued” (i.e., when his initial postconviction petition was

       due). We disagree.

¶ 25          In 2015, our supreme court recognized that a 19-year-old defendant could raise an as-

       applied constitutional challenge to his sentence under the Act. See Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶

       44. And “while the more recent caselaw certainly adds to defendant’s argument, his

       proportionate penalties claim was ‘buildable’ ” prior to Harris, Thompson, and even Miller. See

       French, 2022 IL App (1st) 220122, ¶ 31 (citing Haines, 2021 IL App (4th) 180612, ¶ 56); see

       also People v. Guerrero, 2012 IL 112020, ¶ 20 (“the lack of precedent for a position differs from

       ‘cause’ for failing to raise an issue, even when the law is against him, in order to preserve it for

       review”). Here, defendant provides no “objective factor” that prevented him from presenting his

       proportionate penalties claim in his initial petition. See French, 2022 IL App (1st) 220122, ¶ 33

       (because defendant’s claim was “buildable” prior to Miller and Thompson, he had “ample time to

       summon the evidentiary support to raise his proportionate penalties claim”).

¶ 26          Finally, relying on People v. Blalock, 2022 IL 126682, defendant argues that the circuit

       court erred “in reasoning that because mitigation evidence was adduced at the original

       sentencing hearing, Dr. Garbarino’s report was not in fact ‘new.’ ” In Blalock, the court held that

       defendant established cause for bringing a coerced confession claim where he presented new

       evidence of a pattern and practice of police misconduct. Id. ¶¶ 30, 45-46. In contrast, defendant

       is relying on the same mitigation evidence presented at the original sentencing hearing. It follows

                                                        -9-
       No. 1-22-0483

       that he “ ‘had the essential legal tools to raise his present proposed claim under the proportionate

       penalties clause’ ” when he filed his initial postconviction petition. See Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶

       93 (quoting Haines, 2021 IL App (4th) 190612, ¶ 49).

¶ 27          Because defendant has failed to establish cause, we need not address whether he has

       made a prima facie showing of prejudice. See People v. Brown, 225 Ill. 2d 188, 207 (2007).

¶ 28                                             CONCLUSION

¶ 29          For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.

¶ 30          Affirmed.

¶ 31          JUSTICE PUCINSKI, specially concurring:

¶ 32          I agree with the majority based on the facts of this case, which was the result of three

       brutal murders and one horrible attempt murder. No one can minimize the terrible effect of these

       crimes, particularly on the child left behind.

¶ 33          However, the science of emerging adults is real and reliable. I urge the legislature to

       consider separate guidelines for juveniles, emerging adults and adults. These are three separate

       and distinct classes based on a combination of age, maturity, impulsivity, and other factors which

       should all be considered in determining intent, a necessary element in felonies, and considered in

       our state’s sentencing guidelines.

                                                        - 10 -