People v. Figueroa (2020)

But that did not relieve the trial court of its obligation to ‘take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison,’ before sentencing defendant to a de facto life term.” Figueroa, 2020 IL App (1st) 172390, ¶ 37 (quoting Miller, 567 U.S. at 480 ).

See People v. Thornton, 2020 IL App (1st) 170677, ¶ 21 (rejecting the State’s arguments that “Peacock erred”); People v. Figueroa, 2020 IL App (1st) 172390, ¶ 35 (“we adhere to Peacock and Thornton”); People v. Daniel, 2020 IL App (1st) 172267, ¶¶ 23-26 (applying Peacock and Thornton to find that a 70-year sentence was de facto life, even though defendant was eligible for day-for-day good-conduct credit that could “reduce his time served to 35 years”); People v. Quezada, 202…

See People v. Thornton, 2020 IL App (1st) 170677, ¶ 21 (rejecting the State’s arguments that “Peacock erred”); People v. Figueroa, 2020 IL App (1st) 172390, ¶ 35 (“we adhere to Peacock and Thornton”); People v. Daniel, 2020 IL App (1st) 172267, ¶¶ 23-26 (applying Peacock and Thornton to find that a 70-year sentence was de facto life, even though defendant was eligible for day-for-day good-conduct credit that could “reduce his time served to 35 years”); People v. Quezada, 202…

But that did not relieve the trial court of its obligation to ‘take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison,’ before sentencing defendant to a de facto life term.” Figueroa, 2020 IL App (1st) 172390, ¶ 37 (quoting Miller, 567 U.S. at 480 ).

People v. Thornton, 2020 IL App (1st) 170677, ¶¶ 18-22 ; People v. Daniel, 2020 IL App (1st) 172267, ¶¶ 8, 22-26 ; People v. Figueroa, 2020 IL App (1st) 172390, ¶¶ 25-35 (“the State again argues that Peacock was wrongly decided,” and “we adhere to Peacock and Thornton”); People v. Quezada, 2020 IL App (1st) 170532, ¶¶ 13-17 (“the State argues that Peacock was wrongly decided,” and “[w]e decline to depart from our holding in Peacock”); People v. Hill, 2020 IL App (1st) 171739…

See Figueroa, 2020 IL App (1st) 172390, ¶ 35 (“we adhere to Peacock and Thornton”); Daniel, 2020 IL App (1st) 172267, ¶¶ 23-26 (applying Peacock and Thornton to find that a 70-year sentence was de facto life, even though defendant was eligible for day-for-day good-conduct credit that could “reduce his time served to 35 years”); Quezada, 2020 IL App (1st) 170532, ¶¶ 13, 16 (“declin[ing] to depart from our holding in Peacock” and holding that a “judicially imposed sentence can…

See Figueroa, 2020 IL App (1st) 172390, ¶ 35 (“we adhere to Peacock and Thornton”); Daniel, 2020 IL App (1st) 172267, ¶¶ 23-26 (applying Peacock and Thornton to find that a 70-year sentence was de facto life, even though defendant was eligible for day-for-day good-conduct credit that could “reduce his time served to 35 years”); Quezada, 2020 IL App (1st) 170532, ¶¶ 13, 16 (“declin[ing] to depart from our holding in Peacock” and holding that a “judicially imposed sentence can…

See Figueroa, 2020 IL App (1st) 172390, ¶ 35 (“we adhere to Peacock and Thornton”); Daniel, 2020 IL App (1st) 172267, ¶¶ 23-26 (applying Peacock and Thornton to find that a 70-year sentence was de facto life, even though defendant was eligible for day-for-day good-conduct credit that could “reduce his time served to 35 years”); Quezada, 2020 IL App (1st) 170532, ¶¶ 13 , 16 - 27 - No. 1-18-2401 (“declin[ing] to depart from our holding in Peacock” and holding that a “judiciall…

See also People v. Figueroa, 2020 IL App (1st) 172390, ¶ 37 (where the attorneys discussed the defendant’s prospects for rehabilitation but the court did not assess those prospects when explaining its ruling, the sentencing hearing did not comply with Miller’s mandate).

See also People v. Figueroa, 2020 IL App (1st) 172390, ¶ 37 (where the attorneys discussed the defendant’s prospects for rehabilitation but the court did not assess those prospects when explaining its ruling, the sentencing hearing did not comply with Miller’s mandate).