9 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2020–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2021Croft, 2018 IL App (1st) 150043, ¶ 32-33 . ¶ 62 Accepting Brewer’s contention, which I do not agree with, that Miller applies to an 18- year-old adult (see Edwards, 2012 IL App (1st) 091651, ¶ 25 ) (at this stage we must accept -18- No. 1-17-2314 Brewer’s allegations as true), the majority simply fails to recognize that Brewer had a Miller compliant sentencing hearing. 2021Id. ¶¶ 32-33. ¶ 82 Accepting Ruiz’s contention, which I do not agree with, that Miller applies to an 18-year- old (see Edwards, 2012 IL App (1st) 091651, ¶ 25 (at this stage we must accept Ruiz’s allegations as true)), the majority simply fails to recognize that Ruiz had a Miller compliant sentencing hearing. | 1 | 5 |
People v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence2022People v. Edwards, 2012 IL 111711, ¶ 22 (citing People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444, 459 (2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Montgomery v. Louisianagreen1 sentence2022As the Court explained in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 208 (2016), a Miller-compliant sentencing hearing is designed to ensure that the defendant is not one of those “rare juvenile offender[s] who exhibits such irretrievable depravity that rehabilitation is impossible and life without parole is justified.” ¶ 86 Miller defined juvenile offenders narrowly, however, based on societal norms, as those - 27 - No. 1-19-2048 under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pitsonbargergreen1 sentence2022People v. Edwards, 2012 IL 111711, ¶ 22 (citing People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444, 459 (2002)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Croft
green
2 sentences2021Croft, 2018 IL App (1st) 150043, ¶ 32-33 . ¶ 62 Accepting Brewer’s contention, which I do not agree with, that Miller applies to an 18- year-old adult (see Edwards, 2012 IL App (1st) 091651, ¶ 25 ) (at this stage we must accept -18- No. 1-17-2314 Brewer’s allegations as true), the majority simply fails to recognize that Brewer had a Miller compliant sentencing hearing. 2020Croft, 2018 IL App (1st) 150043, ¶¶ 32-33 . ¶ 42 Accepting Johnson’s contention that Miller applies to a 19-year-old (see Edwards, 2012 IL App (1st) 091651, ¶ 25 ) (at this stage we must accept Johnson’s allegations as true), the majority simply fails to recognize that Johnson cannot establish prejudice because he had a Miller- compliant sentencing hearing. | 3 | 2020–2021 |
People v. Campbell
green
1 sentence2025Garcia, 2024 IL App (2d) 210488-B, ¶ 19 (citing People v. Campbell, 2023 IL App (1st) 220373, ¶ 49 ); see Wilson, 2022 IL App (1st) 192048 , ¶ 85 (a Miller-compliant sentencing hearing is designed to ensure that the defendant is not one of those rare offenders who exhibits irretrievable depravity such that no rehabilitation is possible and life without parole is justified). ¶ 71 Further, the sentencing court recognized defendant’s youth and referenced it (as well as defendant’s lack of criminal history) as the reason it did not impose more than the minimum firearm enhancement. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Hilliard
green
1 sentence2022However, “[u]nless and until explicit direction is given in light of Jones, we are constrained to follow our current supreme court precedent.” People v. Hilliard, 2021 IL App (1st) 200112 , ¶ 22 n.2. ¶ 21 In summary, we conclude that defendant made a sufficient showing that, based on evolving neuroscience, societal standards, and defendant’s youthful characteristics, he was developmentally equivalent to a juvenile at the time of the offense. 3 We further conclude that the record does not establish that defendant received a Miller-compliant sentencing hearing. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
1 sentence2022Miller, 567 U.S. at 465 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.