defendant to raise claim in Illinois

2026The State further argues that Dorsey has foreclosed the defendant’s 11 asserted “cause” because Dorsey found that the “announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment” in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), “[did] not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause.” Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74 .

2026There, the court found, “Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause.” Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74 .

2026Instead, defendant had the essential legal tools to raise his present proposed claim under the proportionate-penalties clause when he filed his previous postconviction petitions.’ [Citation.] As Miller did not change the law applicable to young adults, it does not provide cause for the proportionate penalties challenges advanced in Moore’s and Williams’s proposed successive postconviction petitions.” Moore, 2023 IL 126461, ¶ 42 (quoting Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶ 93 ). -8- 1-25-0240 ¶ 20 In Clark, our supreme court found that “ ‘Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth am

2026Instead, defendant had the essential legal tools to raise his present proposed claim under the proportionate-penalties clause when he filed his previous postconviction petitions.’ [Citation.] As Miller did not change the law applicable to young adults, it does not provide cause for the proportionate penalties challenges advanced in Moore’s and Williams’s proposed successive postconviction petitions.” Moore, 2023 IL 126461, ¶ 42 (quoting Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶ 93 ). -8- 1-25-0240 ¶ 20 In Clark, our supreme court found that “ ‘Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth am

2023See Patterson, 2014 IL 115102, ¶ 97 (“A ruling on a specific flavor of constitutional claim may not justify a similar ruling brought pursuant to another constitutional provision.”).

2022See Patterson, 2014 IL 115102 , ¶ 97 (‘A ruling on a specific flavor of constitutional claim may not justify a similar ruling brought pursuant to another constitutional provision.’).” Id. ¶ 74. ¶ 35 The court also found People v. LaPointe, 2018 IL App (2d) 160903 , instructive.

2026Instead, defendant had the essential legal tools to raise his present proposed claim under the proportionate-penalties clause when he filed his previous postconviction petitions.’ [Citation.] As Miller did not change the law applicable to young adults, it does not provide cause for the proportionate penalties challenges advanced in Moore’s and Williams’s proposed successive postconviction petitions.” Moore, 2023 IL 126461, ¶ 42 (quoting Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶ 93 ). -8- 1-25-0240 ¶ 20 In Clark, our supreme court found that “ ‘Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth am

2025People v. Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶ 94 (“the Miller line of cases does not satisfy the ‘cause’ prong of the cause-and-prejudice test for raising a proportionate penalties claim in a successive postconviction petition, as Miller’s unavailability does nothing to explain why defendant neglected to raise the proportionate penalties clause claim in his prior postconviction proceedings.”); People v. Moore, 2023 IL 126461, ¶ 40 (holding that Miller “does not provide cause for a young adult offender to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause” in a successive petition); People v. Hilliard

2008See Leonardi, 168 Ill. 2d at 101 (“a general denial of any proximate cause is sufficient for the defendant to raise the defense” and the defendant is entitled to an instruction on that theory when sufficient evidence has been presented); Petre v. Kucich, 356 Ill.

2008See Leonardi, 168 Ill. 2d at 101 ("a general denial of any proximate cause is sufficient for the defendant to raise the defense” and the defendant is entitled to an instruction on that theory when sufficient evidence has been presented); Petre v. Kucich, 356 Ill.

2026Savage, 2020 IL App (1st) 173135, ¶ 59 (“It is well established that offenders who are 18 years and older cannot raise a facial challenge to their sentences under the eighth amendment and the Miller line of cases.”) As our supreme court held in Hilliard, “ ‘Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause’ ” in a successive postconviction petition and “Miller applies to neither discretionary sentences nor adults.” Hilliard, 2023 IL 128186, ¶ 28 . ¶ 39 However, at the heari

2025People v. Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶ 94 (“the Miller line of cases does not satisfy the ‘cause’ prong of the cause-and-prejudice test for raising a proportionate penalties claim in a successive postconviction petition, as Miller’s unavailability does nothing to explain why defendant neglected to raise the proportionate penalties clause claim in his prior postconviction proceedings.”); People v. Moore, 2023 IL 126461, ¶ 40 (holding that Miller “does not provide cause for a young adult offender to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause” in a successive petition); People v. Hilliard

2026Instead, defendant had the essential legal tools to raise his present proposed claim under the proportionate-penalties clause when he filed his previous postconviction petitions.’ [Citation.] As Miller did not change the law applicable to young adults, it does not provide cause for the proportionate penalties challenges advanced in Moore’s and Williams’s proposed successive postconviction petitions.” Moore, 2023 IL 126461, ¶ 42 (quoting Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶ 93 ). -8- 1-25-0240 ¶ 20 In Clark, our supreme court found that “ ‘Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth am

2024In doing so, the supreme court reaffirmed Dorsey and explained the reasoning behind that holding, writing as follows: “We further held in Dorsey that ‘Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause’ in a successive postconviction petition. [Citation.] We reached this conclusion because, long before Miller, many cases in this state already recognized that ‘courts have discretion to grant leniency to a juvenile even if he or she is prosecuted as an adult.’ [People v. Mille

2023The court held that defendant failed to show cause, reaffirming its holding “in Dorsey that ‘Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause’ in a successive postconviction petition.” Id. ¶ 92. ¶ 21 The Clark court found that the “same reasoning” in Dorsey applied to the 24-year-old defendant because, “[a]s is the case with juvenile offenders, Illinois courts were also aware that ‘less than mature age can extend into young adulthood—and they have insisted that sentences t

2022We agree with the State. ¶ 16 In Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74 , our supreme court found that “Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause.” See also People v. Haines, 2021 IL App (4th) 190612, ¶ 44 (rejecting the argument that a defendant who was 18 at the time of the commission of a murder could rely on the nonexistence of Miller for failure to raise a proportionate penalties clause claim in a 2008 postconviction petition because the defendant had the essential legal

2026See People v. Bardsley, 2017 IL App (2d) 150209, ¶ 17 . “[T]he mere presence in the State’s evidence of facts sufficient to permit a defendant to raise a defense is not by itself sufficient to trigger the requirement that the State disprove the defense.” Id. “[T]he main reason a defendant must specifically raise an affirmative defense is to alert the State to what it must rebut.

2026See People v. Bardsley, 2017 IL App (2d) 150209, ¶ 17 . “[T]he mere presence in the State’s evidence of facts sufficient to permit a defendant to raise a defense is not by itself sufficient to trigger the requirement that the State disprove the defense.” Id. “[T]he main reason a defendant must specifically raise an affirmative defense is to alert the State to what it must rebut.

2023See Davis, 2014 IL 115595, ¶ 42 ; People v. Daniels, 2020 IL App (1st) 171738, ¶¶ 1, 23, 34 ; People v. Johnson, 2020 IL App (1st) 171362, ¶¶ 1-2, 6 ; People v. Minniefield, 2020 IL App (1st) 170541, ¶¶ 1-2 . ¶ 74 The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74 , found that “Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause.” The supreme court reasoned that: “Illinois courts have long recognized the differences between persons of mature age and those wh

2022The defendant points to a number of cases in which 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old defendants were granted leave to file successive postconviction petitions raising proportionate penalties claims, each of which was decided before our supreme court issued its opinion in People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010 (People v. Brewer, 2021 IL App (1st) 172314 , People v. Franklin, 2020 IL App (1st) 171628 , People v. Bland, 2020 IL App (3d) 170705 , People v. Minniefield, 2020 IL App (1st) 170541 , People v. Ruiz, 2020 IL App (1st) 163145 , People v. Johnson, 2020 IL App (1st) 171362 ). ¶ 12 In Dorsey, the supreme

2026Savage, 2020 IL App (1st) 173135, ¶ 59 (“It is well established that offenders who are 18 years and older cannot raise a facial challenge to their sentences under the eighth amendment and the Miller line of cases.”) As our supreme court held in Hilliard, “ ‘Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause’ ” in a successive postconviction petition and “Miller applies to neither discretionary sentences nor adults.” Hilliard, 2023 IL 128186, ¶ 28 . ¶ 39 However, at the heari

2023Similar infirmities exist in People v. Johnson, 2020 IL App (1st) 171362, ¶¶ 1-2, 6 (19-year-old defendant with a discretionary life sentence found to have satisfied cause and prejudice test to file a successive postconviction petition); People v. Minniefield, 2020 IL App (1st) 170541, ¶¶ 1-3 (same as to 19- year-old defendant with a 25-year discretionary sentence and mandatory 25-year enhancement); People v. Bland, 2020 IL App (3d) 170705, ¶¶ 6, 14 (allowing successive postconviction petition to proceed for 19-year-old defendant with 71- year sentence); and People v. Savage, 2020 IL App (1st)

2023Id. ¶ 40. ¶ 17 In Dorsey, the supreme court held that “Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause.” People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 73 ; see also Wimberly, 2022 IL App (1st) 211464, ¶ 8 .

2022The defendant points to a number of cases in which 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old defendants were granted leave to file successive postconviction petitions raising proportionate penalties claims, each of which was decided before our supreme court issued its opinion in People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010 (People v. Brewer, 2021 IL App (1st) 172314 , People v. Franklin, 2020 IL App (1st) 171628 , People v. Bland, 2020 IL App (3d) 170705 , People v. Minniefield, 2020 IL App (1st) 170541 , People v. Ruiz, 2020 IL App (1st) 163145 , People v. Johnson, 2020 IL App (1st) 171362 ). ¶ 12 In Dorsey, the supreme

2023See Davis, 2014 IL 115595, ¶ 42 ; People v. Daniels, 2020 IL App (1st) 171738, ¶¶ 1, 23, 34 ; People v. Johnson, 2020 IL App (1st) 171362, ¶¶ 1-2, 6 ; People v. Minniefield, 2020 IL App (1st) 170541, ¶¶ 1-2 . ¶ 74 The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74 , found that “Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause.” The supreme court reasoned that: “Illinois courts have long recognized the differences between persons of mature age and those wh

2021See Davis, 2014 IL 115595, ¶¶ 4-5, 42-45 (holding that Illinois law recognized the “special status of juvenile offenders” before Miller and res judicata therefore barred relitigation of juvenile offender’s challenge to sentence under proportionate penalties provision of Illinois Constitution, even though Miller was not decided until 2012, which was many years after the 1995 appellate court decision that resolved the juvenile’s penalties claim on direct appeal). ¶ 73 Moreover, we find that Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a de

2022People v. Hemphill, 2022 IL App (1st) 201112, ¶ 34 (distinguishing Savage and noting that pleading requirements for successive petitions are higher than initial petitions). ¶ 46 Moreover, our supreme court has confirmed that “Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause” in a successive postconviction petition.

2022Thus, Miller’s unavailability prior to 2012 at best deprived defendant of ‘some helpful support’ for his state constitutional law claim, which is insufficient to establish ‘cause.’ [Citation.]” Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74 . ¶8 Appellate decisions have followed suit, “repeatedly conclud[ing] that Miller and its progeny do not provide petitioners seeking leave to file successive petitions with the requisite cause for challenging their sentences on proportionate penalties grounds.” People v. Peacock, 2022 IL App (1st) 170308-B, ¶ 20 (collecting cases); see also People v. Hemphill, 2022 IL App (1

2008See Leonardi, 168 Ill. 2d at 101 (“a general denial of any proximate cause is sufficient for the defendant to raise the defense” and the defendant is entitled to an instruction on that theory when sufficient evidence has been presented); Petre v. Kucich, 356 Ill.

2008See Leonardi, 168 Ill. 2d at 101 ("a general denial of any proximate cause is sufficient for the defendant to raise the defense” and the defendant is entitled to an instruction on that theory when sufficient evidence has been presented); Petre v. Kucich, 356 Ill.

2022However, in Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74 , our supreme court held that “Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause.” The court continued that “Miller’s unavailability prior to 2012 at best deprived defendant of ‘some helpful support’ for his state constitutional law claim, which is insufficient to establish ‘cause.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. LaPointe, 2018 IL App (2d) 160903, ¶ 59 ).

2022However, in Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74 , our supreme court held that “Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth -9- No. 1-22-0122 amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause.” The court continued that “Miller’s unavailability prior to 2012 at best deprived defendant of ‘some helpful support’ for his state constitutional law claim, which is insufficient to establish ‘cause.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. LaPointe, 2018 IL App (2d) 160903, ¶ 59 ).

2024In Hilliard, the court cited Dorsey for the proposition that “Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause in a successive postconviction petition” and Moore for the proposition that “Miller applies to neither discretionary sentences nor adults.” (Emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. ¶ 89 Due to the factual similarity of People v. Minniefield, 2020 IL App (1st) 170541 , we note in particular Hilliard’s abrogation of Minniefield.

2023See Davis, 2014 IL 115595, ¶ 42 ; People v. Daniels, 2020 IL App (1st) 171738, ¶¶ 1, 23, 34 ; People v. Johnson, 2020 IL App (1st) 171362, ¶¶ 1-2, 6 ; People v. Minniefield, 2020 IL App (1st) 170541, ¶¶ 1-2 . ¶ 74 The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74 , found that “Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause.” The supreme court reasoned that: “Illinois courts have long recognized the differences between persons of mature age and those wh

2023Similar infirmities exist in People v. Johnson, 2020 IL App (1st) 171362, ¶¶ 1-2, 6 (19-year-old defendant with a discretionary life sentence found to have satisfied cause and prejudice test to file a successive postconviction petition); People v. Minniefield, 2020 IL App (1st) 170541, ¶¶ 1-3 (same as to 19- year-old defendant with a 25-year discretionary sentence and mandatory 25-year enhancement); People v. Bland, 2020 IL App (3d) 170705, ¶¶ 6, 14 (allowing successive postconviction petition to proceed for 19-year-old defendant with 71- year sentence); and People v. Savage, 2020 IL App (1st)

2022The defendant points to a number of cases in which 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old defendants were granted leave to file successive postconviction petitions raising proportionate penalties claims, each of which was decided before our supreme court issued its opinion in People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010 (People v. Brewer, 2021 IL App (1st) 172314 , People v. Franklin, 2020 IL App (1st) 171628 , People v. Bland, 2020 IL App (3d) 170705 , People v. Minniefield, 2020 IL App (1st) 170541 , People v. Ruiz, 2020 IL App (1st) 163145 , People v. Johnson, 2020 IL App (1st) 171362 ). ¶ 12 In Dorsey, the supreme

2022We agree with the State. ¶ 16 In Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74 , our supreme court found that “Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause.” See also People v. Haines, 2021 IL App (4th) 190612, ¶ 44 (rejecting the argument that a defendant who was 18 at the time of the commission of a murder could rely on the nonexistence of Miller for failure to raise a proportionate penalties clause claim in a 2008 postconviction petition because the defendant had the essential legal

2022See id.; People v. Howard, 2021 IL App (2d) 190695, ¶¶ 20-21 . ¶5 Petitioner’s proportionate-penalties claim fails because he cannot establish that required “cause.” In People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74 , a case decided after petitioner filed his opening brief and cited here by the State, our supreme court held that Miller did not provide “cause” for a proportionate-penalties claim to be raised, for the first time, in a successive post- conviction petition: “Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim u

2026See, e.g., Minniefield, 2025 IL App (1st) 240463 - U, ¶¶ 65-66.

2025People v. Reed, 2020 IL 124940, ¶¶ 29, 49 . 9 ¶ 38 In the present matter, defendant’s first claim in his pro se petition is that the State did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2025See People v. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶ 41 .