People v. Smallwood

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District · 2024 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawSentencingHabitual Criminal StatuteSection 2-1401 ReliefProportionate Penaltiessection 2-1401habitual criminalmandatory natural life

Facts

Defendant was convicted of attempted first degree murder for attacking a cab driver by placing him in a chokehold and stabbing him at least 18 times. Because defendant had two prior Class X felony convictions, the State sought and the trial court imposed mandatory natural life imprisonment under the habitual criminal statute in effect in 2019. In a section 2-1401 petition, defendant claimed his sentence was unconstitutional as applied because he had schizoaffective disorder and because one prior Class X felony was committed when he was 19. The petition relied on his affidavit and medical records, but the records did not show a doctor diagnosed schizoaffective disorder and did not establish that any such condition reduced his culpability or was remediable over time.

Issue

Was defendant’s 2019 mandatory natural life sentence unauthorized under the pre-2021 version of section 5-4.5-95(a) because one predicate Class X felony was committed when he was 19? And did defendant sufficiently establish, in his section 2-1401 petition, that the sentence was unconstitutional as applied to him under the proportionate penalties clause or the eighth amendment based on his alleged mental illness?

Rule

Under the 2016-to-2021 version of section 5-4.5-95(a), a defendant may be sentenced to natural life as a habitual criminal if he was 18 or older at the time of the third qualifying offense; that version is unambiguous and allows prior qualifying offenses committed when the defendant was younger than 18. A section 2-1401 petition may assert a proportionate-penalties voidness challenge, but an as-applied Miller-type claim based on mental illness requires the defendant to show the condition reduced culpability and, more importantly, that the characteristics are transient and can be remedied over time so that rehabilitation is possible.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Peoria, Illinois, Devin Marsh was sentenced in 2020 to mandatory natural life under Illinois's habitual-criminal statute. Two years later, he filed a section 2-1401 petition alleging that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him under the Illinois proportionate penalties clause because of his severe mental illness.

How should the court treat the petition procedurally?

Explanation. The majority held that a section 2-1401 petition may raise a voidness challenge stemming from the alleged unconstitutionality of a criminal statute under the proportionate penalties clause. The trial court in the case erred in treating section 2-1401 as categorically improper, although dismissal was still affirmed on the merits. Thus the court should accept the petition as a proper procedural vehicle and then analyze whether the as-applied claim is sufficiently established. (Derived from People v. Smallwood (n.d.).)