Summary of Argument

In People v. Harris, this Court held that youthful offenders over 18 at the time of their offenses could challenge the constitutionality of their sentences under Miller and the Illinois Constitution. Harris, 2018 IL 121932; Ill. Const. 1970, art. 1, § 11; see also People v. House, 2021 IL 125124 (remanding for further post-conviction proceedings to develop record in as-applied Illinois proportionality challenge based on Harris). Yet Harris has been applied inconsistently, with courts failing to clarify what an emerging adult must plead to obtain leave to file a successive post-conviction petition. Petitioners in the instant cases, both of whom were barely 19 years old at the time of the respective offenses which led to their convictions and natural life sentences, were denied leave to file a successive petition. Both argue that, as applied to them, their sentences violate the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Proportionate Penalties Clause of the Illinois Constitution. At a minimum, they should be permitted to file a successive petition before the circuit court so that they might be able to develop a record sufficient to support their arguments. This Court should permit the Petitioners leave to file and establish that the threshold for pleading a motion to file such a petition should not be particularly onerous.

Historically, courts struggled with how to treat emerging adults in criminal and non-criminal contexts, underscoring that there is no bright line for when a young person should be treated as an adult under the law, especially in light of evolving social and scientific understanding regarding young adults. While the U.S. Supreme Court in its Eighth Amendment jurisprudence has adopted demarcation at the age of 18 (see, e.g., Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (banning mandatory life-without-parole sentences for youth under the age of 18 and requiring consideration of youth-centered factors in sentencing decisions)), modern neurological research shows that brain development continues well into a person’s 20s. Equipped with this understanding, the Illinois Supreme Court and General Assembly have gone even further than Miller, considering developmental psychology, neurology, and sociology to more equitably reflect recent research in the law. That accords with the actions of other state courts and legislatures around the country, which have extended protections for emerging adults and youth who commit even serious and violent crimes, partially in response to this modern understanding. The concern courts have expressed for emerging adults should be even more salient for emerging adults who are also part of vulnerable populations such as those with intellectual defects and disabilities, and those without access to attorneys or experts. With no clear guidance, these vulnerable parties, particularly those who are incarcerated, will find it even harder to develop a record at the leave-to-file stage. In other words, if the threshold at the initial stage is insurmountably high, incarcerated pro se litigants—by definition, lacking resources and possibly having intellectual deficits—will be denied access to justice when they otherwise could have put forth a successful post-conviction claim. This Court should provide relief in these cases and ensure that post-conviction petitioners at a leave-to-file stage are provided an opportunity to demonstrate the merits of their constitutional claims.

Summary of Argument

In People v. Harris, the Illinois Supreme Court extended the constitutional protections afforded to youthful offenders under Miller v. Alabama to individuals over 18 at the time of their offenses. However, the application of Harris has been inconsistent, leaving unanswered the question of what pleadings are necessary for an emerging adult to obtain leave to file a successive post-conviction petition.

Historically, the treatment of emerging adults within the legal system has been marked by uncertainty, reflecting the absence of a clear boundary between youth and adulthood. While the Supreme Court has recognized 18 as a threshold in its Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, contemporary research indicates that brain development extends into the early twenties. In response to this evolving understanding, Illinois has adopted a more nuanced approach, considering developmental factors in sentencing decisions.

This progressive stance is consistent with national trends, as state courts and legislatures increasingly recognize the unique circumstances of emerging adults who commit serious offenses. However, the lack of clear guidance in the wake of Harris has created challenges for vulnerable populations, such as those with intellectual disabilities or limited access to legal resources.

The Petitioners in the present cases argue that the denial of leave to file a successive petition violated their constitutional rights. They contend that a low threshold should be established at the leave-to-file stage, enabling incarcerated pro se litigants to develop a record sufficient to support their claims. By providing such an opportunity, the court can ensure access to justice for those who might otherwise be barred due to their inherent disadvantages.

In conclusion, the inconsistent application of Harris highlights the need for clear guidance on the pleadings required for emerging adults to challenge their sentences. The adoption of a low threshold at the leave-to-file stage would promote fairness and align with the evolving understanding of the developmental needs of this unique population.

Summary of Argument

In a previous case, People v. Harris, the court decided that young people who were over 18 when they committed crimes could still argue that their sentences were unfair under the law. However, courts have been inconsistent in how they apply this decision. In the current cases, two young men who were just 19 when they were sentenced to life in prison without parole were not allowed to challenge their sentences. They argue that their sentences are too harsh and violate their rights.

Courts have always found it difficult to decide how to treat young adults who commit crimes. There is no clear age when a person should be considered an adult in the eyes of the law. This is especially true now that we know from science that brain development continues into the early 20s.

The Supreme Court has ruled that young people under 18 cannot be sentenced to life without parole and that courts must consider their youth when making sentencing decisions. However, Illinois and other states have gone further and have extended protections to young adults as well. This is based on research that shows that young adults are still developing and may not fully understand the consequences of their actions.

It is especially important to treat young adults fairly who are also members of vulnerable groups, such as those with disabilities or who do not have access to lawyers. If it is too difficult for these individuals to challenge their sentences, they may be denied justice.

The courts should provide relief in these cases and allow the young men to challenge their sentences. This will ensure that young offenders have a fair chance to argue that their sentences are unconstitutional.

Summary of Argument

In a recent court case, the court decided that young adults over 18 can argue that their sentences are too harsh, based on the Constitution and Illinois law. However, courts have been inconsistent in applying this rule. Two young men, who were just 19 when they were sentenced to life in prison, were not allowed to argue that their sentences were unfair. They believe that their sentences violate the Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

In the past, it was difficult to decide how to treat young adults in the legal system. There is no clear age when a young person should be treated as an adult, especially as we learn more about how brains develop. While the Supreme Court has said that youth under 18 should not be sentenced to life without parole, science shows that brain development continues into a person's 20s.

Understanding this, Illinois has gone beyond the Supreme Court's ruling to consider brain development and other factors when sentencing young adults. Other states and countries have also made changes to protect young adults who commit crimes.

It's especially important to protect young adults who are vulnerable, such as those with mental health issues or who can't afford lawyers. Without clear guidance, it's very difficult for these individuals to argue that their sentences are unfair.

The court should provide relief in these cases and ensure that young adults have a fair chance to argue that their sentences are too harsh.

Summary of Argument

Some young people who were almost 19 when they did something wrong have been sentenced to life in prison. Now, people are questioning whether that's fair.

In the past, it was hard to know how to treat young people who broke the law. Some people thought they should be treated like adults, while others thought they should be treated differently because they were still young.

Scientists have learned that people's brains keep developing until they're in their 20s. So, now some people think that young people who commit crimes should be given a chance to show that they've changed and should be able to get out of prison someday.

In Illinois, young people who were sentenced to life in prison can now argue that their sentence is unfair. But it's been difficult for them to get permission to make this argument.

The two young people in these cases are arguing that their life sentences are unfair. They want to be able to show that they've changed and deserve a chance to get out of prison.

It's important to make sure that young people who make mistakes have a chance to prove that they can become good citizens. If we don't give them a chance, they might never be able to leave prison, even if they've changed.