People v. Conwell, 2026 IL App (1st) 240714 (Ill. Ct. App. 2026)

The Illinois 1st District Court of Appeals granted an individual to proceed on a postconviction hearing to challenge his life sentence based on the state’s proportionate penalties clause. The court held that the individual who 18 at the time of the offense was entitled to present mitigating evidence about his age and youthfulness. The court stated in relevant part:

Notably, Conwell was only one month past his eighteenth birthday at the time of the offenses, placing him at the threshold of legal adulthood. This proximity to juvenile status further establishes the relevance of evolving considerations of youth and development and supports Conwell’s contention that his culpability must be assessed considering characteristics traditionally associated with juvenile offenders. Because an as-applied proportionate penalties challenge depends on the particular facts and circumstances of the individual defendant, such a claim could not have been meaningfully raised without a sufficiently developed record. See Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶ 48; House, 2021 IL 125124, ¶ 31. Under these circumstances, the absence of both (i) a developed factual record and (ii) a legal framework recognizing how youth-related characteristics apply to emerging adults operated as impediments to raising this claim earlier. The dissent is correct that the age of 18 marks the line for juvenile eighth amendment protection. But Conwell is not bringing an eighth amendment juvenile-sentencing claim. He raises an as-applied claim under the Illinois proportionate penalties clause, which requires a more individualized inquiry and consideration of youth.