People v. Applewhite

• Decision Date: 13 November 2020
• Docket Number: 1-14-2330
• Citation: 171 N.E.3d 891,2020 IL App (1st) 142330 -B,446 Ill.Dec. 786
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel APPLEWHITE, Defendant-Appellant.

2020 IL App (1st) 142330 -B

171 N.E.3d 891

446 Ill.Dec. 786

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Samuel APPLEWHITE, Defendant-Appellant.

1-14-2330

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, FIFTH DIVISION.

NOVEMBER 13, 2020

James E. Chadd, Thomas A. Lilien, and Elena B. Penick, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Elgin, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg and Brian K. Hodes, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE CUNNINGHAM delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 On May 23, 2014, the defendant-appellant, Samuel Applewhite, filed a pro se postconviction petition in the circuit court of Cook County alleging that his 45-year sentence is unconstitutional. Following the dismissal of his petition by the circuit court, the defendant appealed. We affirmed that dismissal, and the defendant sought leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Court then issued a supervisory order directing this court to vacate our decision in which we affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the defendant's pro se postconviction petition. Our supreme court expressly ordered us to reconsider our prior judgment regarding the defendant's postconviction petition in light of the supreme court's ruling in People v. Buffer , 2019 IL 122327, 434 Ill.Dec. 691, 137 N.E.3d 763. For the reasons that follow, upon reconsideration of our prior ruling, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 In October 2001, the State charged the defendant with multiple counts of attempted first degree murder ( 720 ILCS 5/8-4, 9-1(a)(1) (West 2000)), aggravated battery with a firearm (id. § 12-4.2), and armed robbery (id. § 18-2(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4)). The indictment alleged that, on July 11, 2001, the defendant, who was 17 years old at the time, "shot Lamar Smith about the body" and "took United States currency from the person or presence of Lamar Smith" (hereinafter referred to as the Lamar Smith case).

¶ 4 The State also charged the defendant, in a separate case, with multiple counts of first degree murder (id. § 9-1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3)), attempted first degree murder (id. §§ 8-4, 9-1), armed robbery (id. § 18-2(a)(2), (a)(3)), attempted armed robbery (id. §§ 8-4, 18-2(a)(4)), and aggravated discharge of a firearm (id. § 24-1.2(a)(2)). These charges stemmed from a shooting incident that occurred on August 19, 2001, in which the defendant shot and killed Marshall Young (hereinafter referred to as the Marshall Young case).

¶ 5 On September 25, 2003, pursuant to a fully negotiated plea agreement, the defendant pled guilty to one count of first degree murder of Marshall Young and one count of aggravated battery with a firearm of Lamar Smith. The remaining counts were dismissed. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 45 years' imprisonment for first degree murder in the Marshall Young case. This sentence consisted of the minimum 20-year sentence for murder (see 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(1)(a) (West 2002) (providing a range of 20 to 60 years)) plus a minimum 25-year mandatory firearm enhancement (see id. § 5-8-1(a)(1)(d)(iii) (providing for an add-on of 25 years to natural life)). The trial court also sentenced the defendant to 12 years' imprisonment for aggravated battery with a firearm in the Lamar Smith case. See id. § 5-8-1(a)(3) (providing a range of 6 to 30 years). The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

¶ 6 The defendant did not move to withdraw his pleas or otherwise appeal from the judgment entered on his convictions. However, on June 29, 2011, he filed a pro se petition for relief from judgment under section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2010) ). In that petition, he alleged, inter alia , that his plea agreement and concurrent sentences were void because consecutive sentences were required by section 5-8-4(a)(i) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Code of Corrections) ( 730 ILCS 5/5-8-4(a)(i) (West 2002)). He argued that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas and go to trial. The State agreed that consecutive sentences were required by the Code of Corrections and conceded that the sentences were void. Nevertheless, the State maintained that it could remedy the sentencing violation of the Code of Corrections by dismissing the aggravated battery with a firearm charge, while leaving intact the guilty plea and 45-year sentence for first degree murder.

¶ 7 The trial court agreed with the State's proposal. Thereafter, the court granted the State's request and vacated the defendant's conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm in the Lamar Smith case. The trial court then issued a revised mittimus reflecting a 45-year sentence for first degree murder in the Marshall Young case. Except for that change, the court otherwise denied the defendant's petition. The defendant appealed, and this court affirmed the trial court's ruling. People v. Applewhite , No. 1-13-1549 (2014) (unpublished summary order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(c) ).

¶ 8 Thereafter, the defendant filed the instant pro se postconviction petition challenging his 45-year sentence. In this petition, he alleged that the mandatory 25-year firearm enhancement, as applied to him, violates the eighth amendment ( U.S. Const., amend. VIII ) and the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 11 ). Specifically, his petition contended that the mandatory minimum sentence for first degree murder and the mandatory firearm enhancement, which resulted in his sentence of 45 years' imprisonment, is unconstitutional pursuant to the principles of sentencing juveniles announced in the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), and Roper v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005).

¶ 9 On June 27, 2014, the trial court dismissed the defendant's pro se postconviction petition at the first stage, finding it "frivolous and patently without merit" because, unlike Miller , Graham , and Roper , the defendant did not receive the "harshest possible penalty" of natural life imprisonment.

¶ 10 The defendant appealed that ruling, and the Office of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD) was appointed to represent him in his appeal. On December 9, 2016, this court affirmed the trial court's summary dismissal of the then pro se defendant's postconviction petition. People v. Applewhite , 2016 IL App (1st) 142330, ¶ 24, 409 Ill.Dec. 849, 68 N.E.3d 957. We held, inter alia , that the defendant's 45-year sentence was not unconstitutional because it was not a de facto life sentence. Id. ¶ 16.

¶ 11 The defendant, then represented by OSAD, filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. On March 25, 2020, our supreme court issued a supervisory order directing us to vacate our judgment entered on December 9, 2016, and reconsider the issues in the case in light of the supreme court's ruling in Buffer , 2019 IL 122327, 434 Ill.Dec. 691, 137 N.E.3d 763. Specifically, we were instructed to consider the issue of whether the defendant's 45-year sentence constitutes a de facto life sentence in violation of the eighth amendment. Following the vacatur of our judgment, we allowed both the defendant and the State to submit supplemental briefs.¹ We now reconsider our judgment.

¶ 12 ANALYSIS

¶ 13 We note that we have jurisdiction to consider this matter, as the defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 603 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013); R. 606 (eff. July 1, 2017).

¶ 14 We now determine the following issue: whether the defendant's 45-year sentence is an unconstitutional de facto life sentence such that the trial court erred in dismissing the defendant's postconviction petition.

¶ 15 The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) ( 725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2014)) provides a method by which convicted persons under a criminal sentence, can assert that their constitutional rights were violated. People v. Hodges , 234 Ill. 2d 1, 9, 332 Ill.Dec. 318, 912 N.E.2d 1204 (2009). The Act allows for a petition to be considered in three stages. Id. at 10, 332 Ill.Dec. 318, 912 N.E.2d 1204. This case falls within the first stage of the process under the Act. During the first stage, the trial court must assess the petition, taking the allegations as true, and determine if the petition is frivolous or is patently without merit. Id. Our review of a first-stage dismissal is de novo . Id. at 9, 332 Ill.Dec. 318, 912 N.E.2d 1204.

¶ 16 The crux of the defendant's postconviction petition is that his sentence is a de facto life sentence in violation of the eighth amendment of the United States Constitution. "The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment ‘guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive sanctions.’ " Miller , 567 U.S. at 469, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (quoting Roper , 543 U.S. at 560, 125 S.Ct. 1183 ). The United States Supreme Court in Miller held that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole, imposed upon juvenile defendants, are unconstitutional under the eighth amendment because such sentences prevent the trial court from considering the mitigating qualities of youth, such as the defendant's age, background, and mental and emotional development. Id. at 476, 489, 132 S.Ct. 2455.

¶ 17 The Illinois Supreme Court has interpreted Miller in a manner applicable to juvenile defendants convicted and sentenced under Illinois law. Under that interpretation, our supreme court has determined that a life sentence, whether natural or de facto , whether mandatory or discretionary, is unconstitutional for juveniles where the trial court did not consider the mitigating qualities of youth described in Miller . See People v. Reyes , ...