This case considered the legality of a life sentence without the possibility of parole imposed on James Walker for a felony murder committed while he was a minor at the age of 17. Walker argued that his sentence violated the Illinois Constitution's Proportionate Penalties Clause, which prohibits excessively severe punishments that are disproportionate to the committed offense. Walker's argument relied partially on the precedent set by Miller v. Alabama (2012), a landmark case in which the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited mandatory life sentences without parole for minors.

The Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, rejected Walker's argument and upheld the sentence. While acknowledging the Miller v. Alabama decision, the court distinguished Walker's case by emphasizing that Miller pertained specifically to mandatory sentencing schemes. In contrast, Walker's sentence resulted from the discretion of a judge who considered the individual circumstances of the case. The court further reasoned that both the gravity of the crime (felony murder) and Walker's prior criminal history justified the severity of the life sentence without parole.

This case examined the life sentence without parole given to James Walker for a felony murder he committed as a 17-year-old. Walker argued that this punishment went against the Illinois Constitution's Proportionate Penalties Clause, which forbids punishments that are too harsh or don't fit the crime. He pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Miller v. Alabama (2012), which outlawed automatic life without parole sentences for minors.

The Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, sided against Walker. While recognizing Miller v. Alabama, the court differentiated Walker's situation. They explained that Miller v. Alabama dealt with mandatory sentences, whereas a judge had given Walker his sentence after taking into account the specifics of his case. The court also concluded that the serious nature of the crime (felony murder) and Walker's past criminal record justified the severe sentence.

This case was about whether James Walker's sentence of life in prison without parole was too harsh. Walker committed a serious crime (felony murder) when he was 17 years old. He argued that his punishment went against the Illinois Constitution, which says punishments can't be too extreme for the crime. Walker pointed to a decision by the highest court in the U.S., Miller v. Alabama (2012), which said that juveniles couldn't automatically get life without parole.

The Illinois Appellate Court, which is like a higher-level court in Illinois, didn't agree with Walker. They recognized the Miller v. Alabama case but said it was different from Walker's situation. The court said Miller v. Alabama was about automatic sentences, while a judge had looked at Walker's case individually before deciding on his sentence. The court also felt that because the crime was so serious and because of Walker's past crimes, the life sentence was justifiable.

In 2018, James Walker asked a court to change his punishment. He was serving a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for a very serious crime he committed when he was 17 years old. Walker argued that his punishment was too harsh and went against a rule in the Illinois Constitution that says punishments can't be "cruel." He also pointed to a decision by the highest court in the United States, which said that mandatory life sentences without parole for young people were not allowed.

The court in charge of Walker's case disagreed with him. They knew about the decision from the higher court but said Walker's situation was different. That other case was about automatic sentences, they explained, but a judge had given Walker his sentence after thinking carefully about what happened. The court also decided that the seriousness of Walker's crime, along with his past behavior, meant the punishment was fair.