In re Isaiah D. (2015)

In fact, we recently applied that logic in rejecting a proportionate penalties challenge: ‘[B]ecause in Chrastka, our supreme court held that sentencing a habitual juvenile offender to a mandatory minimum sentence *** did not 17 No. 1-17-0152 violate the eighth amendment and the proportionate penalties clause provides co-extensive protections, we also reject Shermaine’s challenge to the habitual juvenile offender provision under our state constitution.’ ” Isaiah D., 2015 IL …

The juvenile argued that the mandatory sentencing provisions of both the VJO 26 1-14-3316 provision and the HJO provision under which he was sentenced were an unconstitutional violation of the eighth amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution because the mandatory nature of the provisions "removes the trial court's discretion in sentencing minors." In re Isaiah D., 2015 IL App (1st) 143507, ¶ 51 . ¶…

In fact, we recently applied that logic in rejecting a proportionate penalties challenge: ‘[B]ecause in Chrastka, our supreme court held that sentencing a habitual juvenile offender to a mandatory minimum sentence *** did not violate the eighth amendment and the proportionate penalties clause provides co-extensive protections, we also reject Shermaine’s challenge to the habitual juvenile offender provision under our state constitution.’ ” Isaiah D., 2015 IL App (1st) 143507,…

Rodney H., 223 Ill. 2d at 520-21 ; see also Deshawn G., 2015 IL App (1st) 143316, ¶ 52 (stating “neither the eighth amendment nor the proportionate penalties clause apply to juvenile proceedings initiated by a petition for adjudication of wardship because ‘a juvenile adjudication of wardship was not criminal in nature and did not impose “punishment” within the meaning of the eighth amendment and proportionate penalties clause’ ” (quoting In re Isaiah D., 2015 IL App (1st) 14…

See also In re Isaiah D., 2015 IL App (1st) 143507, ¶¶ 21-22 (listing only date of final judgment sufficient as “[t]here is nothing in the applicable rules of our supreme court suggesting that the notice of appeal must contain further specificity”). ¶ 69 The July 27, 2010, order partially dismissing Garcia’s petition and advancing it for a third-stage hearing only on the fitness issue was both a step in the procedural progression of his case and a preliminary determination n…

See also, In re Isaiah D., 2015 IL App (1st) 143507, ¶¶ 21-22 (listing only date of final judgment sufficient as "there is nothing in the applicable rules of our supreme court suggesting that the notice of appeal must contain further specificity"). ¶ 69 The July 27, 2010, order partially dismissing Garcia's petition and advancing it for a third stage hearing only on the fitness issue was both a step in the procedural progression of his case and a preliminary determination ne…

Compare Banks, 2015 IL App (1st) 130985, ¶ 24 (quoting Rodney H., 223 Ill. 2d at 518 , to hold that protections afforded by proportionate penalties clause are coextensive with eighth amendment), and In re Isaiah D., 2015 IL App (1st) 143507, ¶ 58 (quoting Patterson, 2014 IL 115102, ¶ 106 , to reject argument that, pursuant to Clemons, proportionate penalties clause affords defendants broader protections than eighth amendment), with Gipson, 2015 IL App (1st) 122451, ¶¶ 69-70 …

Compare Banks, 2015 IL App (1st) 130985, ¶ 24 (quoting Rodney H., 223 Ill. 2d at 518 , to hold that protections afforded by proportionate penalties clause are coextensive with eighth amendment) and In re Isaiah D., 2015 IL App (1st) 143507, ¶ 58 (quoting Patterson, 2014 IL 115102, ¶ 106 , to reject argument that, pursuant to Clemons, proportionate penalties clause affords defendants broader protections than eighth amendment) with Gipson, 2015 IL App (1st) 122451, ¶¶ 69-70 (r…

Compare Banks, 2015 IL App (1st) 130985, ¶ 24 (quoting Rodney H., 223 Ill. 2d at 518 , to hold that protections afforded by proportionate penalties clause are coextensive with eighth amendment) and In re Isaiah D., 2015 IL App (1st) 143507, ¶ 58 (quoting Patterson, 2014 IL 115102, ¶ 106 , to reject argument that, pursuant to Clemons, proportionate penalties clause affords defendants broader protections than eighth amendment) with Gipson, 2015 IL App (1st) 122451, ¶¶ 69-70 (r…