People v. Brewer
Key Takeaways
- 1 Miller v. Alabama does not provide 'cause' for emerging adults to raise proportionate penalties clause claims in successive petitions.
- 2 Newly developed neuroscience must be presented to the circuit court first; appellate-level introduction forfeits the argument.
- 3 Relevant for criminal defense attorneys handling successive postconviction petitions involving emerging adult sentencing challenges under Illinois law.
Summary
Tyrone Brewer was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to 80 years in prison for an offense committed when he was approximately 18 years and 5 months old. After his direct appeal and initial postconviction petition failed, Brewer sought leave to file a successive postconviction petition arguing his sentence was unconstitutional as applied under the Illinois proportionate penalties clause. The circuit court ultimately dismissed his supplemental petition following the Illinois Supreme Court's decisions in People v. Dorsey (2021) and People v. Moore (2023), and Brewer appealed.
The First District affirmed on all grounds. First, the court held that Dorsey and Moore foreclosed Miller v. Alabama as a source of legal 'cause' for emerging adult proportionate penalties clause claims, implicitly overruling the prior appellate finding in Brewer II. Second, the court refused to consider Brewer's factual cause argument based on a 2022 neuroscience White Paper because it was submitted for the first time on appeal rather than to the circuit court. The court also noted the science remained unsettled. Third, the court found postconviction remand counsel did not provide unreasonable assistance, as counsel filed a Rule 651(c) certificate and submitted rehabilitative evidence consistent with the existing legal framework.
This decision is significant for criminal defense attorneys because it confirms that emerging adults face substantial procedural barriers in successive postconviction litigation, that scientific evidence supporting as-applied sentencing claims must be developed at the circuit court level, and that Miller provides no cause for such claims regardless of the petitioner's age at the time of the offense.
Key Holdings
1. Miller v. Alabama does not provide 'cause' for an emerging adult offender to raise an as-applied proportionate penalties clause sentencing claim in a successive postconviction petition, as established by People v. Dorsey and People v. Moore.
2. A newly developed scientific study appended for the first time to an appellate brief — rather than presented to the circuit court — cannot establish factual 'cause' for a successive postconviction petition, and the argument is forfeited on appeal.
3. Postconviction remand counsel does not provide unreasonable assistance by failing to supplement a petition with emerging scientific research where counsel filed a Rule 651(c) certificate and submitted rehabilitative evidence consistent with the existing legal framework.
4. Because the essential legal tools to raise a proportionate penalties clause claim were always available, an emerging adult defendant who failed to raise ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel in an initial postconviction petition waives that argument, and successive petition counsel cannot be faulted for declining to amend based on a waived claim.