People v. House

2021 IL 125124

185 N.E.3d 1234

452 Ill.Dec. 498

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant,

v.Antonio HOUSE, Appellee.

Docket No. 125124

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Opinion filed October 22, 2021.

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Michael M. Glick and Gopi Kashyap, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

James E. Chadd, State Appellate Defender, Douglas R. Hoff, Deputy Defender, and Lauren A. Bauser, Assistant Appellate Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Chicago, for appellee.

Children & Family Justice Center of Bluhm Legal Clinic at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, of Chicago (Shobha L. Mahadev and Lydette S. Assefa, of counsel, and Savanna Leak and Rachel Lee, law students), for amici curiae Children & Family Justice Center et al.

JUSTICE CARTER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 On November 28, 2018, this court issued a supervisory order directing the appellate court to vacate its judgment in People v. House , 2015 IL App (1st) 110580, 410 Ill.Dec. 971, 72 N.E.3d 357. We directed the appellate court to consider the effect of this court's opinion in People v. Harris , 2018 IL 121932, 427 Ill.Dec. 833, 120 N.E.3d 900, on the issue of whether petitioner's sentence violated the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 11 ). People v. House , No. 122134, 425 Ill.Dec. 132, 111 N.E.3d 940 (Ill. Nov. 28, 2018) (supervisory order).

¶ 2 Following the issuance of our supervisory order, the appellate court determined that petitioner's sentence was unconstitutional as applied under the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution. The appellate court remanded the cause for a new sentencing hearing. 2019 IL App (1st) 110580-B, 436 Ill.Dec. 355, 142 N.E.3d 756.

¶ 3 The State appealed as a matter of right ( Ill. S. Ct. R. 317, 612(b)(2) (eff. July 1, 2017)). We now reverse in part and vacate in part the appellate court's judgment and remand the cause to the circuit court for further postconviction proceedings.

¶ 4 BACKGROUND

¶ 5 Following a Cook County jury trial, petitioner was found guilty of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of aggravated kidnapping based on his participation in the 1993 abductions and shooting deaths of 15-year-old Stanton Burch and 18-year-old Michael Purham. Petitioner was allegedly among a group of men who kidnapped the victims after the victims attempted to sell drugs in an area where petitioner and his fellow gang members typically sold drugs. Petitioner was two months past his nineteenth birthday at the time of the crimes. The victims were driven to a vacant field, where they were shot and killed. Petitioner provided police with a handwritten statement attesting to his involvement in the crimes. He claimed that he had no idea of the larger plan when the victims were driven to the deserted location and that the victims were killed after he left. The circuit court sentenced petitioner to a mandatory natural life term for the murder convictions ( 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(1)(c)(ii) (West 1992)) and 60 years for each aggravated kidnapping conviction, to run consecutively to the life term (see 720 ILCS 5/10-2(a)(3) (West 1992)).

¶ 6 Petitioner filed a direct appeal raising, inter alia , a claim that his consecutive and extended-term sentences violated Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The appellate court affirmed petitioner's convictions, vacated his aggravated kidnapping sentences, and remanded for resentencing. People v. House , 328 Ill. App. 3d 1088, 288 Ill.Dec. 94, 817 N.E.2d 219 (2001) (table) (unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 ).¹ On remand, petitioner's sentence for the aggravated kidnapping convictions was reduced to consecutive 30-year terms.

¶ 7 While his direct appeal was pending, petitioner filed a pro se petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act ( 725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2008)), raising, inter alia , a claim that his mandatory natural life sentence violated the proportionate penalties provision of the Illinois Constitution ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 11 ) and a claim of actual innocence. The circuit court dismissed petitioner's postconviction petition, finding it lacked jurisdiction while petitioner's direct appeal remained pending. Petitioner appealed the dismissal, and the appellate court vacated the dismissal and remanded the case for second-stage postconviction proceedings on the State's confession of error. People v. House , No. 1-02-0346 (Feb. 5, 2003) (order).

¶ 8 On remand, petitioner's appointed counsel filed an amended postconviction petition raising five issues: (1) actual innocence based on a witness's recantation of her trial testimony; (2) his constitutional rights were violated based on newly discovered evidence of police misconduct; (3) the trial court erred in denying his postconviction counsel's request to obtain Office of Professional Standards files on the detectives involved in his interrogation; (4) his constitutional rights were violated based on ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; and (5) his mandatory sentence of natural life violated the eighth amendment of the United States Constitution ( U.S. Const., amend. VIII ) and the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 11 ). The circuit court granted the State's motion to dismiss the petition at the second stage of the postconviction proceedings.

¶ 9 The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of petitioner's postconviction petition on the first four issues, vacated petitioner's sentence after finding that his mandatory natural life sentence violated the Illinois proportionate penalties provision as applied, and remanded for resentencing. House , 2015 IL App (1st) 110580, 410 Ill.Dec. 971, 72 N.E.3d 357. The appellate court reasoned that applying the mandatory natural life sentencing statute to petitioner violated the proportionate penalties provision because it precluded consideration of mitigating factors, specifically petitioner's age, level of culpability, and criminal history. Id. ¶ 89. Citing a newspaper opinion, a publication from an advocacy organization, and practices of some European countries, the appellate court found that the United States Supreme Court's "division between juvenile and adult at [age] 18" did not "create[ ] a bright line rule," the designation of age 18 as an adult "appear[ed] to be somewhat arbitrary," and the characteristics of juvenile offenders also applied to young adult offenders. Id. ¶¶ 94-96.

¶ 10 The appellate court concluded that petitioner's mandatory natural life sentence shocked the moral sense of the community. Id. ¶ 101. Accordingly, the appellate court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. Id. ¶ 102. Because it found the mandatory natural life sentence unconstitutional as applied to petitioner under the proportionate penalties provision of the Illinois Constitution, the appellate court declined to address petitioner's remaining constitutional challenges, including those under the eighth amendment. Id. ¶ 103.

¶ 11 Both parties appealed. In November 2018, this court denied the State's petition for leave to appeal as a matter of right (Ill. S. Ct. Rs. 317, 612(b)(2) (eff. July 1, 2017)) and issued a supervisory order directing the appellate court to vacate its judgment and to reconsider the effect of this court's opinion in Harris , 2018 IL 121932, 427 Ill.Dec. 833, 120 N.E.3d 900, on the issue of whether petitioner's sentence violated the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution. House , No. 122134, 425 Ill.Dec. 132, 111 N.E.3d 940 (Ill. Nov. 28, 2018) (supervisory order). This court also denied petitioner's petition for leave to appeal concerning the appellate court affirming the dismissal of his postconviction petition on the first four issues.

¶ 12 On remand, the parties filed an agreed motion for summary disposition asking the appellate court to remand the case "for further second-stage post-conviction proceedings, including compliance with [Illinois Supreme Court] Rule 651(c)." The appellate court denied the agreed motion and again affirmed the dismissal of petitioner's postconviction petition on the first four issues, vacated petitioner's sentence based on its conclusion that his mandatory natural life sentence violated the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution, and remanded for resentencing. 2019 IL App (1st) 110580-B, 436 Ill.Dec. 355, 142 N.E.3d 756.

¶ 13 The State appealed as a matter of right. Ill. S. Ct. Rs. 317, 612(b)(2) (eff. July 1, 2017). We allowed the Children and Family Justice Center; the Juvenile Law Center; the Center for Law, Brain and Behavior; the Civitas Child Law Clinic; the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Project; the Juvenile Justice Initiative of Illinois; the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights; and Marc Kadish to file a joint amicus curiae brief. Ill. S. Ct. R. 345 (eff. Sept. 20, 2010).

¶ 14 ANALYSIS

¶ 15 The procedural history of this appeal began with the dismissal of petitioner's postconviction petition at the second stage of postconviction proceedings. The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) ( 725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2008)) provides a tool for criminal defendants to assert that their convictions were the result of a substantial denial of their rights under the United States Constitution or the Illinois Constitution or both. Id. § 122-1(a); People v. Coleman , 183 Ill. 2d 366, 378-79, 233 Ill.Dec. 789, 701 N.E.2d 1063 (1998). Postconviction relief is limited to constitutional deprivations that occurred during the original trial. Coleman , 183 Ill. 2d at 380, 233 Ill.Dec. 789, 701 N.E.2d 1063. "A proceeding brought under the [Act] is not an appeal of a defendant's underlying judgment. Rather, it is a collateral attack on the judgment."...