People v. Jackson

1

2022 IL App (4th) 200182-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAURICE A. JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-20-0182

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

November 29, 2022

This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Champaign County No. 03CF687 Honorable Thomas J. Difanis, Judge Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Turner and Cavanagh concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

KNECHT PRESIDING JUSTICE.

¶ 1 Held: The trial court did not err in denying defendant's request for leave to file a successive postconviction petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2016)) as defendant failed to demonstrate cause for failure to raise his successive claim in his initial postconviction petition.

¶ 2 Defendant, Maurice A. Jackson, appeals the circuit court's denial of his February 2020 request for leave to file a successive petition for relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2016)). Defendant argues the denial is erroneous, maintaining he satisfied the cause-and-prejudice threshold necessary to permit the filing of his claim he functioned like a juvenile at the time of his offense and was, therefore, entitled by the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution to the same constitutional protections afforded to those under the age of 18 by Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). Finding defendant failed to demonstrate cause, we affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 A. Defendant's Trial

¶ 5 At age 18, defendant (born January 25, 1985) was charged with the April 20, 2003, first degree murder of 17-year-old Demarcus Cotton (720 ILCS 5/9-1 (a)(1) (West 2002)). A jury trial was held. The State presented evidence establishing defendant first encountered Cotton 9 to 10 months before the shooting when defendant and defendant's friend, Tyran Bascomb, stole marijuana from Cotton. On the date of the shooting, Cotton confronted defendant about the earlier incident. The two began to fight. After someone threatened to call the police, Cotton fled and told defendant to meet him at Beardsley Park. Defendant took a gun to Beardsley Park. At the park, Cotton approached defendant. The two exchanged words. Defendant then fired three shots at Cotton. The jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder.

¶ 6 B. Sentencing Hearing

¶ 7 In July 2004, defendant's sentencing hearing was held. At the hearing, the State presented evidence of defendant's criminal history starting when defendant was nine years old. At age nine, defendant threatened a seven-year-old child, telling him he was going to kill him. Defendant took a gun on the school bus and pointed the gun at the victim. That same day, defendant had taken the gun to school and to the Boys and Girls Club. At age 13, defendant was the aggressor during a fight at his school. Defendant tripped a student and the two fought. When searched, a "toy cap gun," which looked like a real gun, was found on defendant. At age 15, defendant encountered Ferlando Craig, someone defendant did not know, while walking along a street. After asking Craig if Craig knew how to box defendant hit Craig repeatedly in his face. After Craig ran defendant rode up to him on a bicycle. Defendant began to raise a gun toward Craig when someone riding next to defendant told him not to shoot. Also, at age 15, defendant stole a purse from an unlocked vehicle.

¶ 8 The State's evidence at sentencing included acts committed by defendant after he turned 18. Defendant was investigated for criminal damage to property after he threw a brick through a window, and he violated a court order prohibiting him from having contact with a 15-year-old girl. While incarcerated on the murder charges, defendant flooded his cell and was involved in two altercations.

¶ 9 In his defense at sentencing, defendant presented the testimony of Joanne Radcliffe, a volunteer with the court-appointed special advocate, who met defendant when she was assigned to his delinquency case in 1998. At that time defendant was 11. Defendant's parents were 15 and 16 years old when defendant was born. Defendant's mother's parental rights to him were terminated. She later died. Defendant's father, a registered sex offender, was imprisoned. Defendant resided with his paternal grandmother in a home with six to nine people, including a sex offender.

¶ 10 According to Radcliffe, she met with defendant every two weeks from 1998 until "probably" 2002. Defendant "was a very good-hearted person." Defendant was considered mildly disabled. He needed a special academic setting and tutors. Defendant had difficulty staying focused and completing his schoolwork. He sucked his thumb to go to sleep and when he walked down the hall at his high school. Defendant had never been nurtured. Radcliffe believed there were some lapses by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) that could have helped defendant. She observed the trial court attempted to help defendant by directing a worker to help him find employment and the judge even went over the newspaper ads with defendant to help him find a job. Radcliffe was not sure defendant ever found work. She believed defendant did not grasp what he was supposed to do as he was mildly disabled when it came to understanding and handling life's problems.

¶ 11 Radcliffe testified defendant was very withdrawn. He did not understand situations "especially when language was involved." Defendant's attitude depended on his peers. Radcliffe believed defendant was a follower who was "very much manipulated." When defendant spoke to her about the incidents involving the police, defendant usually reported he was "hanging out with [his] guys." Radcliffe had not seen defendant do anything unkind. She believed defendant would follow the rules in prison and a structured environment would be helpful to him.

¶ 12 The sentencing court was further presented with a July 14, 2004, report by Marty Traver, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist. Defendant, age 19 at the time, was evaluated by Dr. Traver for the report. Defendant reported having been in counseling throughout his life to deal with anger problems and antisocial behavior. He began drinking alcohol and using cannabis at age 16. Defendant reported having blackouts from alcohol use. Defendant reported "minor cases" of fighting, burglary, curfew violations, and driving without a license. He showed no remorse for his actions and did not appear to have developed a conscience.

¶ 13 According to Dr. Traver, defendant had "extreme deficits in his comprehension ability, information learned in school, mathematical computation, and vocabulary." Defendant was "markedly antisocial." While defendant appeared cooperative on the surface, defendant possessed "characteristics of impulsivity, intolerance, hostility, aggression, and irrational behaviors." Defendant was depressed. He had feelings of inferiority. Dr. Traver observed defendant's IQ scores indicated he was in the mildly mentally retarded to borderline range of intellectual functioning.

¶ 14 During closing argument, the State argued because of defendant's shortcomings and his history, the court must protect the community. The State argued defendant's willingness to pick up a gun to solve his problems made him a danger to himself and others. The State requested a 55-year sentence.

¶ 15 Defense counsel countered with a request for the minimum of 20 years. Defense counsel highlighted defendant had the error in judgment of hanging out with "bad influence friends." Counsel maintained defendant was "jumped" by Cotton and his friends at the park. Counsel further emphasized defendant was placed in the borderline mentally retarded range. He pointed to defendant's "adaptive functioning," which was at the lower end of the scale, and argued defendant was not "innately a bad person" but was "deep inside, he's a young boy, trying to act like a man." Defense counsel argued defendant had "some rehabilitative potential" as he was a "good young man" who "pick[ed] the wrong friends" and who did not have "the mental capacity to understand even picking better friends." Defense counsel stated defendant would receive an education and mental health treatment in prison but a sentence of 55 years meant defendant would die in prison.

¶ 16 The sentencing court stated it considered the presentence report as well as the reports by Dr. Traver and DCFS, the testimony and evidence from trial, defendant's statements, and counsel's comments. As to the aggravating factors, the court stressed defendant's history of delinquency and criminal activity and noted it "ha[d] to fashion a sentence that will deter others from committing this type of an offense." Regarding mitigating factors, the court agreed defendant's mental status was mitigating. The court observed "defendant's upbringing was dismal," and he had no parents who were able to raise him. The court observed, even at the age of 9, defendant was aware of the potential consequences of taking a gun to school and, at 11, defendant was found to be at severe risk for gang activity and drug problems, and intensive services were recommended. The court noted defendant's involvement with the juvenile-justice system and he had been "sentenced to various periods of incarceration in the detention center. The court concluded, while defendant's mental limitations may have allowed him to be easily influenced by others, defendant made his own choices not to work with those who tried to help him.

¶ 17 The court concluded defendant was dangerous and it was...