Court Opinion

ID: 9375118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:04:01.765401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.147395
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 210583-U
                                              No. 1-21-0583
                                     Order Filed February 24, 2023

                                                                                      Fifth Division

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).

                                          IN THE
                               APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                 FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                 )
                                                     )        Appeal from the
       Respondent-Appellee,                          )        Circuit Court of Cook County.
                                                     )
       v.                                            )        09 CR 11653
                                                     )
IAN VALENCIA                                         )        Honorable James M. Obbish,
                                                     )        Judge Presiding.
       Petitioner-Appellant.                         )

       JUSTICE NAVARRO delivered the judgment of the court.
       Presiding Justice Delort and Justice Mitchell concurred in the judgment.

                                             ORDER

       Held: Trial court properly granted the State’s motion to dismiss
       petitioner’s second-stage postconviction petition where petitioner failed to
       make a substantial showing that: (1) he was actually innocent of attempted
       first degree murder; (2) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel;
       and (3) his sentence was unconstitutional as applied to him.

¶1     Petitioner, Ian Valencia, appeals from the trial court’s grant of the State’s motion to

dismiss his second-stage postconviction petition. On appeal, Valencia contends that he made a

substantial showing that: (1) he was actually innocent of attempted first degree murder where he

presented newly discovered evidence; (2) he was deprived of effective assistance of trial counsel
No. 1-21-0583

where counsel advised him not to testify; and (3) the mandatory sentencing scheme that led to his

26-year sentence is unconstitutional as applied to him. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶2                                      I. BACKGROUND

¶3        Following a bench trial, Valencia was found guilty of two counts of attempted first

degree murder and one count of aggravated discharge of a firearm stemming from an incident

that occurred on June 11, 2009. The details of the trial were discussed on direct appeal in People

v. Valencia, 2012 IL App (1st) 102312-U, but we will reiterate them here as necessary to this

appeal.

¶4        Nelson Villagomez testified that on the date in question, at approximately 4:45 p.m., he

and his brother, Freddie Villagomez, began walking home from the bus stop located near their

apartment at 4130 North Kimball. Id. ¶ 3. As they walked northbound on Kimball, Nelson

noticed a gray Oldsmobile with a man, later identified as Walter Quevedo, in the driver’s seat.

Id. The car pulled up alongside Nelson and Freddie. Id.

¶5        According to Nelson, Valencia, who was in the passenger seat, “started gang banging” to

Nelson and Freddie, and “threw up a gang sign.” Id. ¶ 4. In response, Nelson told him that he

was not “gang banging.” Id. The encounter lasted approximately 20 seconds. Id. Nelson and

Freddie were not carrying any weapons and did not make any motions towards the car. Id.

Nelson had no connection to a gang. Id.

¶6        Freddie walked ahead of Nelson as they crossed the street. Id. ¶ 5. He was a couple steps

from their front door when Nelson observed the Oldsmobile parked in an alley, about half a

block from his home. Id. With both arms raised and his palms up, Nelson said to Valencia,

“What you want to do?” Id. Nelson then observed Valencia’s hand come out of the passenger

                                                  2
No. 1-21-0583

window, saw flames from a gun, and heard approximately six gunshots. Id. Valencia was

shooting in Nelson’s direction. Id.

¶7     When the shooting stopped, Nelson got up from the ground, checked to make sure his

brother was safe, and then called the police to report the shooting. Id. ¶ 6. The police arrived

within a few minutes and took Nelson and Freddie to the police station, where Valencia and

Quevedo were in police custody. Id. Nelson and Freddie positively identified Valencia as the

passenger and the shooter, and Quevedo as the driver. Id.

¶8     Freddie Villagomez’s testimony was substantially the same as that of Nelson’s. Id. ¶¶ 7-

8. Officer John Becker testified that a search of the Oldsmobile revealed a semiautomatic .380-

caliber Kel-Tec handgun and two .380 caliber bullets in a hidden compartment under the glove

compartment on the passenger side. Id. ¶ 9.

¶9     Officer Becker testified that he spoke with Valencia on the night of the shooting, and that

Valencia said Quevedo told him there was a gun underneath the dashboard on the passenger side,

so Valencia retrieved the gun and shot at Nelson and Freddie until the gun was empty. Id.

¶ 10   Amy Campbell, an evidence technician, testified that she found five expended shell

casings at the mouth of the alley. Id. ¶ 10. She also recovered a fired bullet lodged in the front

siding, beneath the second-floor window of the home next door to Nelson and Freddie’s

apartment building. Id. She recovered a fired bullet from the flowerbed located in front of the

brothers’ apartment building. Id.

¶ 11   At the conclusion of Valencia’s bench trial, he was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment

for attempted murder, enhanced by a 20-year term for personally discharging a firearm during

the commission of the offense. On direct appeal, Valencia argued that the State failed to prove

                                                  3
No. 1-21-0583

him guilty of attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt. This court disagreed and affirmed

the trial court’s judgment. People v. Valencia, 2012 IL App (1st) 102312-U.

¶ 12   On July 12, 2013, Valencia filed a pro se postconviction petition raising the following

arguments: 1) he was actually innocent of attempted first degree murder; 2) trial counsel was

ineffective for telling Valencia that his juvenile adjudications were admissible against him,

which caused him to give up his right to testify at trial; 3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing

to interview a witness; 4) trial counsel was ineffective for telling defendant to reject the State’s

plea offer of nine years’ imprisonment in exchange for a guilty plea to one count of Class 1

aggravated discharge of a firearm; and 5) the 20-year mandatory firearm enhancement violated

the United States and Illinois constitutions as applied to 17-year-olds.

¶ 13   Valencia supported his petition with numerous affidavits. In support of his actual

innocence claim, he attached the affidavit of James Galambos, whom Valencia met while they

were both incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center. Galambos stated in his affidavit that he

witnessed the shooting and that he “saw the gun pointed upward at an angle, not towards the man

that was yelling.”

¶ 14   On September 27, 2013, in a 28-page written order, the trial court summarily dismissed

Valencia’s pro se postconviction petition. Valencia appealed.

¶ 15   On appeal, Valencia contended that his postconviction petition was improperly dismissed

because it raised arguable claims of: 1) actual innocence; 2) ineffective assistance of counsel;

and 3) unconstitutional sentencing. People v. Valencia, 2016 IL App (1st) 133524-U. We found

that the trial court was misplaced in relying on two cases, People v. Brown, 54 Ill. 2d 21, 24

(1973) and People v. Thompson, 161 Ill. 2d 148, 177-78 (1994)), in dismissing Valencia’s

petition because both cases discussed the dismissal of second-stage petitions, not first-stage

                                                   4
No. 1-21-0583

petitions. Valencia, 2016 IL App (1st) 133524-U, ¶ 28. We noted that Valencia’s petition was

merely at the first stage of postconviction proceedings, “where the threshold for survival is low.”

Id. ¶ 28.

¶ 16    Based on our determination that the trial court applied an incorrect standard when

reviewing Valencia’s petition, we then looked at the petition with the correct standard and found

that there was nothing in the record to affirmatively rebut Valencia’s claim that his attorney told

him that if he testified, the shooting he took part in as a juvenile would be used against him by

the State. Id. ¶ 31. Accordingly, we found that it was arguable that counsel’s advice misled

Valencia into thinking that, no matter what, his juvenile adjudication would be used against him

if he testified. Id. ¶¶ 29-30. Accordingly, because we found that Valencia’s petition adequately

set forth allegations that showed his counsel’s performance arguably fell below an objective

standard of reasonableness and that he was arguably prejudiced, we reversed and remanded with

directions to advance Valencia’s petition to the second stage. Id. ¶ 31. In doing so, we stated:

        “We do not, by our ruling, suggest that defendant’s argument will ultimately

        prevail. Rather, we are following long established legal precedent regarding the

        procedural process which must be applied to a postconviction petition. In the

        instant case, the record suggests the trial judge either conflated the first and

        second stages, or he went directly to the second stage when ruling on defendant’s

        petition. We voice no opinion on the ultimate ruling which will result from

        allowing defendant’s petition to advance in the proper procedural sequence.” Id. ¶

        33.

¶ 17    On remand, appointed counsel filed a supplemental postconviction petition. The petition

added the following claims: (1) Valencia’s 26-year sentence is unconstitutional due to his age in

                                                   5
No. 1-21-0583

light of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012); (2) the non-retroactive application of section 5-

4.5-105 denies equal protections to juvenile defendants sentenced before the statute’s effective

date; and (3) that the exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile courts is unconstitutional. Counsel

filed a motion to withdraw Valencia’s claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

call Quevedo as a witness and for advice regarding plea negotiations.

¶ 18   On August 4, 2020, the State filed a motion to dismiss. A hearing was held, after which a

written order was issued by the trial court. The trial court stated that the court had admonished

Valencia of his right to testify, that the decision to testify was his alone to make, and that

Valencia never alerted the court of his desire to testify. The trial court noted that even taking

Valencia’s allegations as true, his alleged off-the-record conversation with counsel occurred

before the court’s admonishments. Therefore, Valencia’s allegations of prejudice were

affirmatively rebutted by the trial court record.

¶ 19   The trial court rejected Valencia’s claim of actual innocence based on the affidavit of

Galambos, a fellow inmate of Valencia’s. The trial court noted that Valencia and Galambos had

“allegedly never met before they were imprisoned together.” The trial court found that Valencia

failed to carry his burden where bullets fired from his gun landed in the flowerbed of the victim’s

house and in a nearby wall. Absent ballistics evidence of his own, the court found that Valencia

failed to make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation.

¶ 20   In terms of the constitutionality of Valencia’s sentence, the court noted that the sentence

was not a de facto life sentence. The trial court then stated that a 26-year aggregate sentence for

shooting at two “defenseless brothers,” even at the age of 17, “does not shock the moral sense of

the community.” The court found Valencia failed to make a substantial showing that his 20-year

firearm enhancement violates the proportionate penalties clause as applied to him.

                                                    6
No. 1-21-0583

¶ 21   Valencia now appeals.

¶ 22                                   II. ANALYSIS

¶ 23   On appeal, Valencia contends that that he made a substantial showing in his second-stage

postconviction petition that: (1) he is actually innocent of attempted first degree murder; (2) he

was denied effective assistance of counsel which resulted in his denial of his right to testify; and

(3) his sentence is unconstitutional. The State responds that Valencia’s supporting evidence is

insufficient to demonstrate a substantial showing of actual innocence, the record rebuts his

contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel or the right to testify, and Valencia

failed to make a substantial showing that his 26-year sentence is unconstitutional as applied to

him.

¶ 24   Under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2020)),

individuals convicted of criminal offenses may challenge their convictions on grounds of

constitutional violations. The Act sets forth three stages of review. To survive dismissal at the

initial state of a postconviction proceeding, a petition need only present the gist of a meritorious

constitutional claim, requiring only that the petitioner plead sufficient facts to assert an “arguably

constitutional claim.” People v. Brown, 236 Ill. 2d 175, 184 (2010).

¶ 25   At the second stage, “the circuit court must determine whether the petition and any

accompanying documentation make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation.” People

v. Edwards, 197 Ill. 2d 239, 246 (2001). The petitioner bears the burden of making this

substantial showing. People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458, 473 (2006). Unless the petitioner’s

allegations are affirmatively refuted by the record, they are taken as true, and the question is

whether those allegations establish or show a constitutional violation. Id. The “substantial

showing” of a constitutional violation “is a measure of the legal sufficiency of the petition’s

                                                  7
No. 1-21-0583

well-pled allegations of a constitutional violation, which if proven at an evidentiary hearing,

would entitle petitioner to relief.” (Emphasis in original). People v. Domagala, 2013 IL 113688,

¶ 35.

¶ 26                                   A. Actual Innocence

¶ 27    Valencia first contends that he made a substantial showing of actual innocence in his

second-stage postconviction petition. To establish a claim of actual innocence, a petitioner must

present evidence that is: (1) newly discovered, meaning the evidence was discovered after trial

and could not have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence; (2) material

and not cumulative, meaning the evidence is relevant and probative of the petitioner’s actual

innocence and adds to the information the trier of fact heard at trial; and (3) be of such

conclusive character that it would probably change the result on retrial. People v. Robinson, 2020

IL 123849, ¶ 47.

¶ 28    In support of Valencia’s claim that he made a substantial showing in his second-stage

postconviction petition of his actual innocence, he attached the affidavit of Galambos, whom he

met at Stateville while serving his sentence in this case. Galambos stated in his affidavit that he

witnessed the shooting and was standing right by the car when he saw the shooter point the gun

“upward at an angle, not toward the man yelling.” Galambos averred that he left the scene

immediately after the shooting because he did not want to be in the area if anything else

happened. After Valencia told him about the offense, Galambos realized that he had witnessed

the shooting and shared what he had seen. Valencia contends that this newly discovered evidence

was not positively rebutted by the record and negates the finding that Valencia acted with the

requisite intent to kill.

                                                  8
No. 1-21-0583

¶ 29    The State concedes that Galambos’ affidavit is considered newly discovered evidence, as

it could not have been discovered prior to Galambos and Valencia meeting at Stateville. It also

concedes that the evidence is material and noncumulative because it is relevant to Valencia’s

actual innocence. However, it maintains that the result of the trial would not have changed if this

evidence had been presented since the other trial evidence presented at trial refuted the testimony

in the affidavit. We agree.

¶ 30    The evidence presented at trial showed that on June 11, 2009, Valencia initiated an

argument with two brothers. When one of the brothers yelled, “What you going to do?” Valencia

pointed a firearm at him and fired five or six shots. According to one of the brothers, Valencia

shot directly at him. Upon being arrested, Valencia admitted to police that he had shot “at the

two victims until the gun was empty.”

¶ 31    At the time of the shooting, one of the brothers was standing in front of his house with his

back to his neighbor’s house. Fired bullets were found in the flowerbed in front of the brothers’

home and embedded into the siding of the neighbor’s house. This physical evidence corroborated

the brothers’ testimony that Valencia fired at the brothers.

¶ 32    To accept Galambos’ affidavit as true, we would have to ignore the physical evidence

presented at trial, and infer, as the trial court noted, that a “bullet naturally fell from the sky so

close to the victims,” and another bullet “fired upward embedded itself in a wall behind the

victim.” Accordingly, because Galambos’ affidavit is positively rebutted by the record and is not

of such conclusive character that it would probably change the result on retrial, we find that

Valencia failed to make a substantial showing of actual innocence in his second-stage

postconviction petition. Robinson, 2020 IL 123849, ¶ 47; People v. Sanders, 2016 IL 118123, ¶¶

48, 52-53 (“Well-pleaded factual allegations of a postconviction petition and its supporting

                                                    9
No. 1-21-0583

evidence must be taken as true unless they are positively rebutted by the record of the original

trial proceedings.”)

¶ 33                           B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

¶ 34   Valencia’s next argument on appeal is that he made a substantial showing in his second-

stage postconviction petition that he received ineffective assistance of counsel where trial

counsel advised him not to testify because of his juvenile adjudication. The State responds that

the court advised Valencia of his right to testify and ensured that his waiver of that right was

knowing and voluntary, and therefore there was no ineffective assistance of counsel.

¶ 35   Every defendant has a constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel under the

sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Illinois. U.S. Const.,

amends. VI, XIV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 8. Claims of ineffective assistance are governed by

the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). See People v. Albanese,

104 Ill. 2d 504 (1984) (adopting Strickland). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the

deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. More specifically, a

defendant must show that counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable under prevailing

professional norms and that there is a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694.

¶ 36   Every criminal defendant has the fundamental constitutional right to decide whether to

testify at trial. People v. Knapp, 2020 IL 124992, ¶ 46. Although an attorney may advise his or

her client on the potential consequences of testifying, the ultimate decision whether to exercise

that right belongs only to the defendant, and only the defendant may waive the right to testify. Id.

Generally, an attorney’s performance will not be found ineffective simply because counsel

                                                 10
No. 1-21-0583

advised the defendant not to testify; rather, counsel will only be found to be ineffective where the

“evidence suggested that counsel refused to allow the defendant to testify.” People v.

Youngblood, 389 Ill. App. 3d 209, 217 (2009).

¶ 37   In Knapp, which was issued by our supreme court while this case was pending in the trial

court after being remanded to second-stage proceedings, the defendant claimed in a

postconviction petition that he unknowingly and involuntarily waived his right to testify due to

trial counsel’s erroneous advice. Knapp, 2020 IL 124992, ¶ 33. The defendant alleged that his

counsel told him that his testimony was not supported by independent evidence and that the

defendant’s denial of gang affiliation would open the door for the State’s gang expert to testify.

Id. The defendant averred in his affidavit that he would not have waived his right to testify at

trial if he had known that his right to testify was not contingent on extrinsic evidence. Id. ¶ 34.

¶ 38   In Knapp, after the circuit court admonished the defendant of his right to testify, the

defendant advised the court that he understood the decision to testify was his and his alone. Id. ¶

26. The circuit court ultimately dismissed the petition at the first stage, the appellate court

affirmed, and the supreme court affirmed the appellate court’s judgment. Id. ¶¶ 2, 35. The

supreme court explained that, because the circuit court informed the defendant that he had a right

to testify, and the defendant affirmed that he did not want to testify at trial after counsel’s

allegedly deficient conduct, the record positively rebutted the defendant’s ineffective assistance

claim. Id. ¶¶ 51-54, 58.

¶ 39   In doing so, our supreme court stated, “[t]o preserve the right to testify, a criminal

defendant is required to make a ‘contemporaneous assertion’ of that right.” Id. ¶ 46. The court

stated that nothing in the record suggested that the defendant “ever alerted the court of his desire

to testify, that he had any questions about his right to testify, or that he otherwise was unsure

                                                  11
No. 1-21-0583

about waiving his right to testify.” Id. ¶ 51. The court further explained, “petitioner’s response

during the trial court’s admonishments unequivocally rebuts his allegations that his decision not

to testify was involuntary or based on allegedly erroneous advice from counsel.” Id. ¶ 54. The

court further stated that taking the defendant’s allegations as true, “the alleged off-the-record

conversations with counsel on petitioner’s right to testify occurred before the circuit court’s

admonishments,” and therefore the defendant failed to make even an arguable showing of

prejudice. Id. We find that the same reasoning applies here.

¶ 40   In the case at bar, Valencia claims that he did not make a knowing and voluntary waiver

of his right to testify because his counsel advised against it due to the possibility of his juvenile

adjudication being used against him. We note, however, that Valencia was admonished in open

court about his right to testify or not testify, and he was the only person that could make that

decision. The following colloquy took place:

                COURT: All right. Mr. Valencia, do you understand, sir, that you

                have a right to testify in this trial in your own defense if you wish

                to do so.

                VALENCIA: Yes.

                COURT: Do you understand you also have a right not to testify in

                this trial if that is your choice?

                VALENCIA: Yes.

                COURT: The decision about whether or not you or any other

                defendant testifies in their own defense is just like the decision

                whether or not you wish to take a jury trial or waive that jury trial.

                It is a personal decision to you alone. Do you understand that?

                                                     12
No. 1-21-0583

                VALENCIA: Yes.

                COURT: Is it your decision not to testify in this case?

                VALENCIA: Yes.

                COURT: Has anybody forced you or threatened you in any way to

                get you to make that decision?

                VALENCIA: No.

                COURT: Did anybody promise you anything to get you to make

                that decision?

                VALENCIA: No.

                COURT: And you are making that decision of your own free will?

                VALENCIA: Yes.

                COURT: Are there any other witnesses or defenses that you

                wanted your attorney to use in this case that he has not used or not

                called – any witnesses he hasn’t called that you wanted him to

                call?

                VALENCIA: No.

                COURT: All right. I believe that the defendant’s choice to exercise

                his constitutional rights has been made knowingly and voluntarily

                and intelligently.”

¶ 41   Valencia never advised the court that he wished to testify during this exchange, and in

fact, explicitly waived that right. Thus, as in Knapp, Valencia’s responses in open court rebut his

claim that he involuntarily waived his right to testify.

                                                 13
No. 1-21-0583

¶ 42   While we previously found that Valencia’s claim regarding his right to testify had enough

merit to advance Valencia’s pro se petition to the second stage of postconviction proceedings,

we also voiced “no opinion on the ultimate ruling which will result from allowing defendant’s

petition to advance in the proper procedural sequence.” Valencia, 2016 IL App (1st) 133524-U, ¶

33. Since that decision, our supreme court in Knapp found that summary dismissal was

warranted at the first stage of postconviction proceedings, where the threshold to survive was

low, because the defendant’s allegations were positively rebutted by the record. It follows that

Valencia’s postconviction petition was properly dismissed at the second stage, where the

threshold to survive was higher, because his allegations were similarly rebutted by the record.

Accordingly, we find that Valencia failed to make a substantial showing in his second-stage

petition that he was denied the right to testify based on trial counsel’s alleged erroneous advice.

¶ 43                                   C. Sentence

¶ 44   Valencia’s final contention on appeal is that he made a substantial showing in his second-

stage postconviction petition that his 26-year sentence, as applied to him, resulted in a sentence

that violated the proportionate penalties clause. The proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois

Constitution 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. Cons.

1970, art. I, §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). Our supreme court has not defined what constitutes

a cruel or degrading sentence that is “wholly disproportioned to the offense” because “as our

society evolves, so too do our concepts of elemental decency and fairness which shape the

‘moral sense’ of the community.” Id. at 339. “To determine whether a penalty shocks the moral

                                                  14
No. 1-21-0583

sense of the community, we must consider objective evidence as well as the community’s

changing standard of moral decency.” People v. Hernandez, 382 Ill. App. 3d 726, 727 (2008).

¶ 45   It is well established that courts unequivocally distinguish juvenile offenders from adults

when imposing life sentences. See Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012); People v. Miller,

2020 Ill. 2d 328 (2002). We know that “children lack maturity and have an underdeveloped

sense of responsibility, are more vulnerable to negative influences, and have character that is not

yet well formed.” People v. Woods, 2020 IL App (1st) 163031, ¶ 56 (citing Miller, 567 U.S. at

471). In Miller, the Supreme Court held that “a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison

without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders” violates the Eighth Amendment of the

United States Constitution because such a scheme, by making the factors of youth “irrelevant to

an imposition of that harshest prison sentence, *** poses too great a risk of disproportionate

punishment.” Id. at 479. In People v. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, our supreme court extended the

constitutional protections set forth in Miller to juvenile defendants sentenced to more than 40

years in prison, finding that a sentence of 40 years or less provides a meaningful opportunity to

demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation and obtain release. Id. ¶ 41.

¶ 46   Here, Valencia’s sentence of 26 years’ imprisonment is not a mandatory life sentence,

nor is it a sentence of more than 40 years that our supreme court has determined would constitute

a de facto life sentence. As such, Valencia’s sentence does not raise the constitutional concerns

expressed in Miller and Buffer. See Woods, 2020 IL App (1st) 163031, ¶ 57 (juvenile

defendant’s 33-year sentence did not raise the constitutional concerns in Miller and Buffer).

Valencia’s sentence, however, did include a mandatory 20-year enhancement because in

committing the offense of attempted murder, he “personally discharged a firearm.” 720 ILCS

5/8-4(c)(1)(C) (West 2020). Valencia, who was 17 years old when he committed the offense,

                                                15
No. 1-21-0583

argues that the mandatory firearm enhancement violates the proportionate penalties clause as

applied to him because it did not permit the court to give appropriate weight to his youth and

rehabilitative potential.

¶ 47    This court has recently discussed this exact issue in Woods, where we noted that our

supreme court has “clearly upheld the constitutionality of mandatory firearm enhancement

provisions.” Woods, 2020 IL App (1st) 163031, ¶ 58. “The court determined that these

provisions did not violate the proportionate penalties clause because the legislature’s purpose in

enacting them, to account for the added danger when an offender uses a firearm in committing a

felony, does not ‘shock the conscience of the community.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Sharpe, 216

Ill. 2d 481, 524-25 (2005)). The court in Sharpe reasoned that, in fixing a penalty for an offense,

the potential for rehabilitation need not be given greater weight than the seriousness of the

offense. 216 Ill. 2d at 525.

¶ 48    We further noted in Woods that in People v. Wilson, 2016 IL App (1st) 142500, ¶ 41,

citing Sharpe, this court held that the application of a 25-year mandatory firearm enhancement to

a 17-year-old defendant convicted of attempted murder did not shock the moral sense of the

community. In Wilson, while noting that the defendant had no prior convictions, had a supportive

family, and felt pressured by peers to shoot the victim, the evidence showed that he “pursued the

victim down an alley, raised his firearm, and shot at the victim four times before fleeing.” Id. ¶¶

41, 43. This court found that, although “there were certain mandatory aspects of defendant’s

sentence, *** the trial court retained wide latitude to fashion a sentence. Id. ¶ 43. We concluded

that the defendant’s sentence of 31 years’ imprisonment did not violate the proportionate

penalties clause. Id.

                                                 16
No. 1-21-0583

¶ 49   Similar to the circumstances in Wilson, the defendant in Woods admittedly carried a gun

to a location near a high school and bus stop where he got involved in a fight, pulled out a gun

while fleeing, and then fired shots with about 30 people in the area. 2020 IL App (1st) 163031, ¶

60. One of the shots hit an officer, who recovered from his injuries. Id. The trial court

acknowledged the defendant’s youth and his lack of a significant criminal record but found that

his actions in firing the gun merited serious consequences. Id. This court found that the trial court

exercised its discretion in sentencing the defendant, giving him little more than the minimum of

31 years but not imposing a natural or de facto life sentence. Id. Following Wilson, this court

found in Woods that the defendant’s 33-year sentence, which included a 25-year mandatory

firearm enhancement, did not violate the proportionate penalties clause. Id. Following this same

reasoning, we find that Valencia’s 26-year sentence, which included a 20-year mandatory

firearm enhancement, did not violate the proportionate penalties clause as applied to him.

¶ 50   Valencia maintains that our standard of moral decency is evolving, and that recent

legislation enacted by our legislature now authorizes a trial court, in its discretion, to decline to

impose any applicable firearm enhancement when sentencing a defendant who is under 18 years

old at the time of the offense. See 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-105(b) (West 2020). While we acknowledge

the recent legislation, we note, as we did in Woods, that “there is no indication the General

Assembly found that application of mandatory firearm enhancements to juvenile defendants

shocked our sense of moral decency.” 2020 IL App (1st) 163031, ¶ 62. The “new provision did

not completely eliminate application of the mandatory firearm enhancements to juvenile

defendants, nor did it make the provision retroactive.” Id. (citing People v. Hunter, 2017 IL

121306, ¶ 56). “Our legislature clearly believed that, for juvenile defendants, mandatory firearm

enhancements were appropriate in certain circumstances.” Id.

                                                  17
No. 1-21-0583

¶ 51   Valencia also cites two appellate court cases that found the application of an adult

sentencing scheme that included a mandatory firearm enhancement, to certain juvenile

defendants, violated the proportionate penalties clause. See People v. Aikens, 2016 IL App (1st)

133578, ¶¶ 1, 37 (17-year-old defendant’s 40-year sentence for attempted murder, which

included a 20-year firearm enhancement, “shocks our evolving standard of moral decency”

because defendant had no prior criminal history, was full of potential and able to rehabilitate, and

had a social history that was troubling); People v. Barnes, 2018 IL App (5th) 140378, ¶¶ 1, 25

(finding that the 15-year mandatory firearm enhancement imposed on the 17-year-old defendant

who committed armed robbery “shocks our evolving standard of moral decency” because the

defendant had no prior criminal history, had rehabilitative potential, and did not harm anyone

during the commission of the offense.) However, both Aikens and Barnes predate our supreme

court’s decision in Buffer that a de facto life sentence for a juvenile is more than 40 years (2019

IL 122327, ¶ 41). The Miller protections are only applicable where a defendant has received a

natural or de facto life sentence, which is not the case here. See People v. Hilliard, 2021 IL App

(1st) 200112, (“it is clear from our supreme court precedent that Miller is only appliable where a

defendant has received a natural or de facto life sentence.”)

¶ 52   Valencia’s constitutional challenge to the truth-in-sentencing statute fails for the same

reason. His 26-year sentence, even if served at 100%, is not a life sentence under any

constitutional measure: he was not mandatorily sentenced to life in prison as prohibited by

Miller, nor was he sentenced to a discretionary de facto life sentence as defined by Buffer. While

Valencia argues that the truth-in-sentencing statute as applied to juveniles prevents him from

obtaining an early release based on rehabilitation, in violation of the principles in Miller, we note

that this court has rejected similar challenges. See People v. Brakes, 2021 IL App (1st) 181737, ¶

                                                 18
No. 1-21-0583

42 (“a juvenile defendant’s sentence (whether served at 100%, 85%, or 50%) may be subject to a

constitutional challenge only if it will keep the juvenile in person for more than 40 years.”) We

find that Valencia’s as-applied challenge to the truth-in-sentencing statute must fail because

requiring a juvenile to serve 100% of a term-of-years, non-de facto life sentence for murder does

not violate the principles set forth in Miller.

¶ 53                            III. CONCLUSION

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

¶ 55    Affirmed.

                                                  19