## Facts

- Tory S. Moore and Marvin Williams were each convicted of murder for offenses committed when they were 19 years old.
- Each received a discretionary sentence of life imprisonment without parole (LWOP).
- After completing direct review and initial postconviction proceedings, each sought leave to file a successive postconviction petition under the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act.
- Both argued their LWOP sentences were unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment and the Illinois proportionate penalties clause based on juvenile-sentencing doctrine and developing neuroscience regarding “emerging adults.”
- In Moore’s case, the circuit court denied leave to file; the appellate court affirmed.
- In Williams’s case, the circuit court denied leave to file; the appellate court reversed and allowed leave.
- The Illinois Supreme Court consolidated the appeals to decide whether either defendant satisfied the statutory gateway requirements for a successive petition.

## Issues

1. Whether *Miller v. Alabama* and related sentencing developments constituted “cause” to permit 19-year-old offenders with discretionary LWOP sentences to file successive postconviction petitions.
2. Whether generalized allegations about “emerging adult” brain development and youth-related characteristics were sufficient to plead facts supporting an as-applied constitutional challenge, thereby satisfying the successive-petition cause-and-prejudice standard.

## Decision

- The court held neither Moore nor Williams made a prima facie showing of “cause” to file a successive postconviction petition.
- The court ruled *Miller* did not change the law applicable to discretionary LWOP sentences imposed on offenders who were 18 or older, and thus did not supply cause for these 19-year-old defendants.
- The court concluded the petitions relied on generalized assertions about neuroscience and youth, without case-specific factual allegations tying developmental immaturity to each defendant at the time of the offense.
- Disposition:
  - Moore: appellate judgment affirmed (leave properly denied).
  - Williams: appellate judgment reversed; circuit court judgment affirmed (leave properly denied).

## Legal Principles

- A successive postconviction petition requires leave of court and a prima facie showing of “cause and prejudice.”
- “Cause” requires an objective factor external to the defense that impeded raising the claim in the initial postconviction proceeding; doctrinal developments do not establish cause where the underlying constitutional theories were previously available.
- *Miller v. Alabama* addresses mandatory LWOP for juveniles and does not, by itself, extend to discretionary LWOP sentences for offenders aged 18 or older.
- For youth-based, as-applied sentencing challenges by young adults, generalized references to developmental science are insufficient; the petition must plead individualized facts showing how alleged immaturity affected the defendant’s culpability and bears on the constitutionality of the specific sentence.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court denied successive postconviction access for two 19-year-old defendants serving discretionary LWOP because *Miller* did not create a new, applicable rule for their sentences and because their pleadings lacked individualized factual allegations necessary to satisfy the cause-and-prejudice gateway.


People v. Moore, 2023 IL 126461 (Ill. 2023)