Emerging Adulthood in Postconviction Review

It’s common for young kids to make impulsive, unwise—sometimes illegal—decisions.

Fortunately, most of those kids grow up and become law abiding individuals. A few, however,

find themselves with lengthy prison sentences. In this blog, I will talk about how the courts look

at “emerging brain science” and potential steps if you have a loved one that is serving a long

sentence as the result of a stupid decision made in their youth.

What is the science?

Science shows that the prefrontal cortex, responsible for impulse control, does not fully develop

until one’s twenties. Experts and the courts call this “emerging brain science.” It’s consistent

with contemporary society’s view that young adulthood is a stage of “extended dependency”

during which young adults invest “in acquiring the skills necessary to accomplish the transition

to mature adulthood.” Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 570 (2005).

How does emerging brain science relate to the law?

Courts have found that emerging adult brain science is relevant to whether a sentence is cruel

and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In 2012, the

United States Supreme Court first acknowledged that young people are different. In Miller v.

Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), the Court, relying on new brain science, banned mandatory life

sentences for juveniles reasoning that their crimes often reflect transient immaturity as opposed

to “permanent incorrigibility.”

Illinois applies that same reasoning to both juveniles and young adults under the Illinois

Constitution’s proportionate penalties clause. The courts, however, do not automatically consider

emerging brain science. Your attorney must make the argument at sentencing. In a

postconviction petition, you must demonstrate to the court that your “specific characteristics”

were like a juvenile’s at the time of the crime and that a lengthy sentence was not warranted.

People v. Zumot, 2021 IL App (1st) 191743, ¶ 27.

Can I ask the court to resentence me based on this new science?

Maybe. This area of law is complicated. It’s best to consult with an attorney experienced in

postconviction cases. Postconviction relief on this issue is generally limited to life sentences, but

Illinois considers any sentence of more than 40 years to be a de facto life sentence. People v.

Buffer, 2019 IL 122327. If the court had no discretion but to impose a state sentence of 40 years

or more, you might be able to file a postconviction petition and ask for resentencing. If the

sentencing took place after 2012—when the Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama—you

may not be eligible, but you can talk to an attorney to see if your attorney was ineffective for not

raising the argument. Keep checking. The legislature is considering a new law that would open

the door for more people to seek relief.

Just remember, there are normally time limitations on seeking this kind of relief. Consult with an

experienced postconviction attorney to learn more.

Call 618-713-6258 for a free and confidential consultation.