People v. Landerman, 2026 IL App (3d) 250107 (Ill. Ct. App. 2026)

The Illinois 3rd District Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a postconviction petition involving a 19 year old, finding that there must be an evidentiary hearing that considers youthfulness under the Illinois proportionate penalties clause.

The court stated in relevant part:

Here, Garbarino’s report discusses the facts specific to defendant, including his childhood trauma and emotional and mental health issues, and how these factors appear to have impacted defendant’s brain development and maturity. The report considers the latest neurological findings on emerging adult brain development and why there is justification for extending the rationale of Miller to young adults—and defendant specifically—where his behavior reflected that of an immature and impulsive 19-year-old without a fully developed brain. Moreover, the evidence presented at trial indicated that defendant was not the driving force behind planning the offense. Multiple times defendant expressed his reluctance to assist Miner. This shows his vulnerability to peer pressure, a hallmark of youth. See People v. Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 46, 418 Ill. Dec. 889, 91 N.E.3d 849. The petition, record, and report from Garbarino therefore made a substantial showing of “how the evolving science on juvenile maturity and brain development that helped form the basis for the Miller decision applies to defendant’s specific facts and circumstances.” See People v. Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶ 46, 427 Ill. Dec. 833, 120 N.E.3d 900. Defendant was also sentenced absent Miller safeguards and has therefore established both prongs of the above test, entitling him to an evidentiary hearing. See People v. Garcia, 2024 IL App (2d) 210488-B, ¶ 18.

Additionally, even if a mandatory life sentence imposed absent Miller safeguards on a young adult who is developmentally in the same category as a juvenile offender is not per se shocking to the moral sense of the community, an evidentiary hearing is still necessary. “[A] defendant of any age can raise a proportionate penalties challenge to a sentence of any length.” People v. Kulpin, 2025 IL App (2d) 240065, ¶ 22, 485 Ill. Dec. 904, 267 N.E.3d 336. “All as-applied constitutional challenges are, by definition, dependent on the specific facts and circumstances of the person raising the challenge.” Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶ 39. Consequently, “it is paramount that the record be sufficiently developed in terms of those facts and circumstances for purposes of appellate review.” People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶ 37, 398 Ill. Dec. 74, 43 N.E.3d 984. “[A] reviewing court is not capable of making an as-applied finding of unconstitutionality in the factual vacuum created by the absence of an evidentiary hearing and findings of fact by the trial court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶ 41.

Whether defendant’s sentence in this matter violates the proportionate penalties clause depends on the specific facts of the case, defendant’s circumstances, and how those facts and circumstances relate to relevant factors such as the seriousness of the offense, as well as defendant’s degree of culpability and rehabilitative potential. However, because no evidentiary hearing was held, defendant was unable to introduce additional evidence of his specific circumstances. Absent an evidentiary hearing, the dismissal of defendant’s petition was premature. See Green-Hosey, 2025 IL App (2d) 240284, ¶ 62 (“even if the State were correct that the court was required to make an express finding that the sentence here, as applied to defendant, shocked the moral sense of the community, the appropriate recourse would be to remand for the court to decide that question”); see also People v. Masters, 2024 IL App (4th) 230370, ¶ 2, 481 Ill. Dec. 828, 255 N.E.3d 1113 (petition denied following a third-stage evidentiary hearing).