Court Opinion

ID: 9555422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 21:05:40.016799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:15.290459
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) 200236-U

                                  Order filed August 11, 2023
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                       IN THE

                                        APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                                 THIRD DISTRICT

                                                         2023

      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF                            )       Appeal from the Circuit Court
      ILLINOIS,                                             )       of the 10th Judicial Circuit,
                                                            )       Peoria County, Illinois.
                 Plaintiff-Appellee,                        )
                                                            )       Appeal No. 3-20-0236
                 v.                                         )       Circuit No. 06-CF-359
                                                            )
      JOE LEE STEWART,                                      )       The Honorable
                                                            )       Paul Gilfillan,
                 Defendant-Appellant.                       )       Judge, Presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

            JUSTICE McDADE delivered the judgment of the court.
            Presiding Justice Holdridge and Justice Brennan 1 concurred in the judgment.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                     ORDER

¶1           Held: The circuit court did not err when it denied the defendant’s motion for leave to
                   file a successive postconviction petition, which was based on a claim that his
                   sentence was unconstitutional because it failed to account for his youth and
                   attendant circumstances.

             1
              Justice Brennan was substituted for Justice Hauptman after oral argument upon his election to
     the Third District Appellate Court, effective December 5, 2022. He has read the briefs and listened to the
     recording of the oral argument.
¶2             In 2006, the defendant, Joe Lee Stewart, was convicted of first degree murder and was

     sentenced to 55 years of imprisonment. In 2020, he filed a motion for leave to file a successive

     postconviction petition, alleging that his 55-year prison sentence was unconstitutional as applied

     to him because it failed to account for his youth and attendant circumstances. The circuit court

     denied the motion. On appeal, Stewart argues that the court erred when it denied his motion. We

     affirm.

¶3                                            I. BACKGROUND

¶4             In 2006, Stewart was found guilty of the first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West

     2004)) of Leon Riley. At the time he shot and killed Riley on August 27, 2005, Stewart was 20

     years old. Stewart was sentenced to a total of 55 years of imprisonment—30 years on the first

     degree murder conviction plus 25 years for a firearm enhancement. Stewart filed a motion to

     reconsider sentence in which he argued that his sentence was excessive and that the circuit court

     failed to properly consider, weigh, and balance aggravating and mitigating factors. That motion

     was denied.

¶5             On direct appeal, Stewart argued only that he was entitled to additional credit toward his

     sentence for time spent in presentence custody. This court ruled that Stewart was in fact entitled

     to that additional credit but we otherwise affirmed his conviction and sentence. People v.

     Stewart, No. 3-06-0874 (2008) (unpublished summary order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule

     23).

¶6             On September 8, 2008, Stewart filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging, in part,

     that trial counsel labored under a conflict of interest and raising no challenge to any aspect of his

     sentence. The circuit court summarily dismissed the petition as frivolous and patently without

                                                        2
     merit, and this court affirmed the circuit court’s ruling on appeal. People v. Stewart (Stewart II),

     405 Ill. App. 3d 1216 (2010) (table) (unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23).

¶7           Stewart filed a pro se pleading entitled “Motion in Nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis”

     in July 2015. The pleading realleged the conflict-of-interest argument that Stewart raised in his

     2008 postconviction petition but included a document this time indicating that trial counsel had

     represented Riley in a 2002 aggravated robbery case. The pleading did not challenge his sentence

     in any way.      The circuit court eventually recharacterized the pleading as a postconviction

     petition and dismissed it. On appeal, this court held that the circuit court erred when it

     recharacterized Stewart’s pleading as a postconviction petition without providing him with the

     proper admonishments pursuant to People v. Shellstrom, 216 Ill. 2d 45 (2005). People v. Stewart,

     2018 IL App (3d) 160408, ¶ 16. Accordingly, we vacated the circuit court’s judgment and

     remanded the case for the circuit court to provide Shellstrom admonishments. Id. ¶ 22.

¶8           In February 2019, before the case was addressed on remand, Stewart filed a motion for

     leave to file a successive postconviction petition in which he realleged his conflict-of-interest

     claim and did not challenge his sentence in any way.

¶9           The circuit court held a hearing on pending matters on April 5, 2019. After giving

     Stewart the Shellstrom admonishments 2, the court asked whether Stewart intended to withdraw

     his 2015 motion in favor of his February 2019 motion for leave to file a successive

     postconviction petition. It was determined that Stewart wanted to amend the 2015 motion so it

     could be recharacterized as a successive postconviction petition. The case was continued.

             2
                Specifically, the circuit court told Stewart that the recharacterization of his pleading “meant that
     the petition is subject to restrictions on successive post-conviction petitions, and you can -- well, and I’m
     going to give you an opportunity to withdraw or amend the pleadings so that it contains all the factors and
     arguments appropriate to a successive post-conviction petition that you believe you have.”
                                                           3
¶ 10          Stewart filed another pro se motion in April 2019 seeking leave to file a successive

       postconviction petition. That motion realleged his conflict-of-interest argument and did not

       challenge his sentence in any way. Stewart’s 2019 motion was ultimately denied, and we

       reversed that denial and remanded the case for further proceedings (People v. Stewart, 2022 IL

       App (3d) 190580-U (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23)).

¶ 11          In March 2020, Stewart again sought leave to file another motion for leave to file a

       successive postconviction petition. For the first time, he alleged that his 55-year prison sentence

       was a de facto life sentence that violated the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois

       Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 11) in that the sentencing court failed to consider his youth

       and attendant circumstances when assessing his rehabilitative potential.

¶ 12          On June 9, 2020, the circuit court issued a written order denying Stewart’s motion. The

       court ruled that Stewart failed to satisfy the prejudice prong of the cause-and-prejudice test

       applicable to successive postconviction petitions because he made no attempt “to show how the

       theory of the ‘emerging adult’ applied to his case and why he was prejudiced.” The court also

       stated that “a defendant must sufficiently develop his record as to how the emerging adult theory

       ‘applies to his particular circumstances’ before a new sentencing hearing will be granted.”

¶ 13          Stewart appealed.

¶ 14                                              II. ANALYSIS

¶ 15          On appeal, Stewart argues that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion for leave

       to file a successive postconviction petition. He contends that he satisfied the cause-and-prejudice

       test applicable to successive postconviction petitions and, therefore, this case should be

       remanded for second-stage postconviction proceedings.

                                                         4
¶ 16           The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) contemplates the filing of only one

       postconviction petition. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2018). To be able to file a successive

       postconviction petition, a defendant must first obtain leave of court. Id. Obtaining leave is

       predicated upon satisfying 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 post-conviction 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 post-

       conviction proceedings so infected the trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violated due

       process.” Id.

¶ 17           We review a circuit court’s decision to deny leave to file a successive postconviction

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

¶ 18           In this case, Stewart argues that he satisfied the cause prong because the cases on which

       his 2020 motion primarily relied (People v. House, 2015 IL App (1st) 110580 (vacated by No.

       122134, 111 N.E.3d 940 (Nov. 28, 2018) (supervisory order)), People v. Harris, 2016 IL App

       (1st) 141744 (aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 2018 IL 121932), and People v. Buffer, 2017 IL App

       (1st) 142931 (aff’d on other grounds, 2019 IL 122327) 3 had not been decided until after his

       initial postconviction petition and his 2015 motion that was eventually recharacterized as a

       postconviction petition. He further claims that even though he filed a motion for leave to file a

       successive postconviction in April 2019, that motion was nothing more than an amended version

               3
                 We note that even though Stewart’s 2020 motion for leave to file a successive postconviction
       petition cited to the First District’s decision in Buffer, on appeal he cites to the supreme court’s 2019
       decision in Buffer. We do not consider this attempt by Stewart to rewrite the basis of his 2020 motion.
                                                            5
       of his 2015 motion. For that reason, coupled with the fact that he was allegedly never told that he

       could add claims to his 2019 motion, Stewart concludes that he established cause as to why he

       did not bring his proportionate penalties claim earlier.

¶ 19          While Stewart does not raise a challenge based on the eighth amendment in this appeal, it

       is important to note that the cases he cites have their origins in eighth amendment jurisprudence;

       namely, Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), in which the United States Supreme Court

       held, in part, that a mandatory life sentence for an individual under 18 years of age violates the

       eighth amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 465. Our supreme court

       has extended Miller to de facto life sentences. People v. Reyes, 2016 IL 119271, ¶¶ 9-10; Buffer,

       2019 IL 112327, ¶¶ 40-41. Additionally, our supreme court expressly stated that Miller’s

       protections do not extend beyond age 18 in the eighth amendment context. Harris, 2018 IL

       121932, ¶ 61.

¶ 20          However, the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution provides broader

       protections than the eighth amendment. People v. Clemons, 2012 IL 107821, ¶ 40. Thus,

       postconviction defendants can raise youth-based, as-applied constitutional challenges to their

       sentences 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. But the ability to

       raise such arguments is not unfettered.

¶ 21          In People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, our supreme court clarified that the unavailability

       of Miller or the cases which have followed it does not establish cause for a successive

       postconviction petition that raises a youth-based challenge to a sentence under the proportionate

       penalties clause. Id. ¶ 74. The Dorsey court added: “Illinois courts have long recognized the

                                                        6
       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.’ ” 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”).

¶ 22           Subsequently, our supreme court has reaffirmed and even extended Dorsey’s 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”). Dorsey and its progeny compel us in this case

       to hold that Stewart cannot establish cause for failing to bring his youth-based challenge to his

       sentence earlier.

¶ 23           Lastly, we reject Stewart’s attempt to base his cause argument in part on a claim that he

       “was never informed that he could add new claims to [his 2015] petition,” which neither

       identifies who had a duty to inform him nor provides any supporting citation in violation of

       Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Further, in accord with our decision in

       Stewart, 2018 IL App (3d) 160408, Stewart was given appropriate Shellstrom admonishments by

       the circuit court.

¶ 24           For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Stewart’s motion for leave 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.

                                                            7
¶ 25                                  III. CONCLUSION

¶ 26   For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Peoria County is affirmed.

¶ 27   Affirmed.

                                                8