People v. Brewer

2025 IL App (1st) 240088

Opinion

2025 IL App (1st) 240088 No. 1-24-0088 Opinion filed October 17, 2025 Sixth Division ______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 01 CR 18452 ) TYRONE BREWER, ) The Honorable ) Kenneth J. Wadas, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Pucinski and Gamrath concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶1 The Illinois Constitution empowers our courts to evaluate the severity of a statutorily

mandated criminal sentence in light of the evolving standard of decency in our community. Yet,

some cases become entangled in procedural complexities that prevent courts from addressing the

core of the claims.

¶2 Tyrone Brewer seeks to clarify his case by arguing that his petition (i) demonstrates cause

and prejudice, which allows him to pursue his as-applied sentencing claim in a successive

postconviction petition, and (ii) made a substantial showing of a constitutional violation that warrants further litigation at an evidentiary hearing. Alternatively, he contends that his counsel

provided inadequate assistance by failing to sufficiently defend his claim against the State’s motion

to dismiss.

¶3 We acknowledge the shifting rules and procedures that Brewer has navigated for the past

eight years, including our previous decision regarding his case. The supreme court has repeatedly

allowed emerging adults to litigate sentencing claims similar to Brewer’s in postconviction

proceedings. But, the procedural form must align with the legal substance when addressing novel

constitutional claims. And petitioners like Brewer have had to repeatedly start and stop their

litigation efforts as the supreme court has continued to consider substantive aspects of claims under

the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 11).

Caselaw from our supreme court compels us to stop Brewer once more and conclude that he has

not established cause as a matter of law.

¶4 As of yet, the neuroscience supporting Brewer’s claim remains unresolved. And Illinois

courts treat the sentencing claims of emerging adults inconsistently, when raised at a sentencing

hearing or in successive postconviction proceedings, even if fundamental fairness should take

precedence over procedural formalities.

¶5 For the time being, we find that Brewer cannot raise his alternative argument about factual

cause for the first time in this appeal. Having determined that he failed to establish cause, we do

not address Brewer’s claim that he made a substantial showing of an as-applied constitutional

violation. Finally, we conclude that remand counsel performed as well as could reasonably be

expected, although we note that the supreme court has the supervisory authority to order the circuit

court to reconsider Brewer’s contention. We affirm.

-2- ¶6 Background

¶7 The pertinent facts from the trial are set out in People v. Brewer, 2013 IL App (1st) 072821

(Brewer I). Instead, we focus on the sentencing hearing and subsequent litigation, including

relevant decisions from the Illinois Supreme Court.

¶8 The trial court sentenced Brewer to a mandatory de facto life sentence of 80 years in prison.

This sentence comprised 50 years for first degree murder (30 years over the minimum) and 30

years for personally discharging a firearm to cause death (5 years over the minimum). At the time

of the offense, Brewer was about 18 years and 5 months old.

¶9 A presentence investigation report indicated that Brewer had a supportive family, a happy

childhood, and was “very close” to his mother and sisters. He had no health or psychological

issues, though he had been diagnosed with depression following an incident in which police beat

him just weeks before this offense. Brewer’s mother and cousin spoke on his behalf in mitigation.

The trial court also received two victim impact statements from the victim’s mother and father.

Brewer declined to address the court.

¶ 10 Before imposing the sentence, the trial court found that none of the statutory factors in

mitigation applied, except possibly “the attitudes of the defendant,” suggesting he was unlikely to

commit another crime. In aggravation, the court found (i) Brewer’s conduct inflicted serious harm,

(ii) he had a minimal history of criminal activity, and (iii) a lengthy sentence was necessary to

deter others from committing similar crimes.

¶ 11 On direct appeal, we reversed Brewer’s conviction and remanded for a new trial.

People v. Brewer, No. 1-07-2821 (2010) (unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule

23). The State sought leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, which denied the petition and

-3- remanded the case for reconsideration, applying its decision in People v. Thompson,

238 Ill. 2d 598 (2010). We did and affirmed the conviction. Brewer I, 2013 IL App (1st) 072821.

¶ 12 About a year later, the trial court summarily dismissed Brewer’s first pro se petition for

postconviction relief. Appointed counsel moved to withdraw on appeal, and after reviewing the

motion and memorandum, we affirmed. People v. Brewer, No. 1-14-2326 (2016) (unpublished

summary order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(c)).

¶ 13 On March 22, 2017, Brewer sought leave to file a successive postconviction petition, which

is the subject of this appeal. In support, Brewer referenced the protections established for juveniles

in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). Citing the then-recent caselaw from the appellate court,

People v. Nieto, 2016 IL App (1st) 121604, and People v. House, 2015 IL App (1st) 110580,

Brewer argued that the judge failed to consider “social science factors” and his “age-related

characteristics” at sentencing. When the circuit court denied his request to file, Nieto and House

had not reached finality, and the circuit court concluded that neither they nor Miller applied to his

case.

¶ 14 We reversed and remanded, holding that Brewer had presented sufficient facts to warrant

further proceedings regarding his claim that the principles of Miller apply to him as an emerging

adult. People v. Brewer, 2021 IL App (1st) 172314-U, ¶¶ 54-56 (Brewer II). Nearly four years

after the circuit court’s ruling, we noted that “the most recent caselaw indicates that all [Brewer]

needs to plead is his age, a mandatory life sentence, a lack of criminal background, and anything

in the record indicating rehabilitative potential.” Id. ¶ 53.

¶ 15 As the parties litigated Brewer’s claim on remand, the caselaw continued to develop. For

example, about five months later, the Illinois Supreme Court held that “Miller’s announcement of

-4- a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a [juvenile]

defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause.” People v. Dorsey,

2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74.

¶ 16 In July 2022, Brewer’s counsel filed a supplemental petition citing Brewer II. Counsel

argued that emerging research suggests the development of the young brain continues well beyond

age 18, so Brewer should be allowed to show that his sentence was unconstitutional as applied to

him. The petition included a character letter from an associate professor who had met Brewer at

Statesville Correctional Center, as well as 89 certificates Brewer had received from prison

programming. Counsel also attached a certificate stating that he had consulted with Brewer and

the alleged facts were “true and correct and represent[ed] the entirety of [Brewer’s] claim.”

¶ 17 After counsel filed the supplemental petition, the Illinois Supreme Court held that “[a]s

Miller does not directly apply to young adults, it also does not provide cause for a young adult

offender to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause.” People v. Moore,

2023 IL 126461, ¶ 40.

¶ 18 The State moved to dismiss Brewer’s petition, citing the supreme court’s recent decisions.

In response, appointed counsel argued that some of those cases were distinguishable and that the

circuit court should focus on Brewer II. The circuit court granted the State’s motion and dismissed

Brewer’s petition.

¶ 19 Analysis

¶ 20 Brewer contends that his petition (i) established cause and prejudice, thus allowing him to

litigate his sentencing claim in a successive postconviction petition and (ii) made a substantial

showing of a constitutional violation, thus requiring further litigation at an evidentiary hearing. He

-5- argues, alternatively, that counsel provided unreasonable assistance by failing to adequately defend

his claim against the State’s motion to dismiss.

¶ 21 Cause

¶ 22 The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) contemplates the filing of one petition by right and

successive petitions with leave of court. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2022). This process for

successive litigation enhances the postconviction system, ensuring that procedural rules do not

undermine fundamental fairness. People v. Blalock, 2022 IL 126682, ¶ 38. Petitioners initiate

successive petitions by invoking the “cause and prejudice” exception, a legal concept codified

under the Act. Id.

¶ 23 A petitioner can establish “cause” by identifying an objective factor that prevented them

from raising a specific claim during the initial postconviction proceedings. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f)

(West 2022). The supreme court has observed “ ‘ “that a showing that the factual or legal basis for

a claim was not reasonably available to counsel” ’ ” will establish cause. People v. Pitsonbarger,

205 Ill. 2d 444, 460 (2002) (quoting Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 283 n.24 (1999), quoting

Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986)).

¶ 24 We review de novo whether Brewer has established cause to allow him to litigate his claim

in a successive postconviction petition. People v. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶¶ 13, 26.

¶ 25 No Legal Basis for Cause

¶ 26 Previously, we determined that Brewer established cause to litigate his sentencing claim

“in that when he filed his initial post-conviction petition in 2014, he could not have anticipated the

line of cases expanding the holding of Miller.” Brewer II, 2021 IL App (1st) 172314-U, ¶ 26.

-6- Brewer now concedes, however, that he can no longer establish cause by citing Miller, as its

holding has not been extended to include sentencing claims for emerging adults.

¶ 27 Our previous ruling was made in the context of rapidly evolving sentencing law. For

example, the Illinois Supreme Court once held that a mandatory life sentence imposed on a juvenile

did not violate the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution. People v. Taylor,

102 Ill. 2d 201, 206, 209 (1984) (concluding legislature considered possible rehabilitation of

juveniles when imposing mandatory minimum sentence of natural life imprisonment for murdering

more than one person). But see People v. Haines, 2021 IL App (4th) 190612, ¶ 51 (describing as

“accepted in Illinois law” the “significant developmental difference not only between minors and

adults but also between young adults and older adults”).

¶ 28 Three decades later, the Illinois Supreme Court noted that under Miller, a mandatory life

sentence as applied to a juvenile violates the eighth amendment, thus providing cause to litigate in

successive postconviction proceedings. People v. Davis, 2014 IL 115595, ¶ 43 (discussing Miller,

567 U.S. at 479). The following year, our supreme court directed an emerging adult to litigate his

Miller-based claim in postconviction proceedings. People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶¶ 38,

44.

¶ 29 When considered together, cases like Taylor, Davis, and Thompson suggest that, similar to

juveniles, some emerging adults may now be able to litigate Miller-based claims in successive

postconviction proceedings. But, in Dorsey, the supreme court held that “Miller’s announcement

of a new substantive rule under the eighth amendment does not provide cause for a [juvenile]

defendant to raise a claim under the proportionate penalties clause.” Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74.

Likewise, in Moore, the supreme court stated that “[a]s Miller does not directly apply to young

-7- adults, it also does not provide cause for a young adult offender to raise a claim under the

proportionate penalties clause.” Moore, 2023 IL 126461, ¶ 40.

¶ 30 In Dorsey and Moore, the supreme court implicitly overruled our previous finding that

Brewer had established cause by showing that a new legal basis (Miller) was not reasonably

available to him during his initial postconviction proceedings (Brewer II, 2021 IL App (1st)

172314-U, ¶ 26). In addition, in Dorsey, the supreme court discussed how “Illinois courts have

long recognized the differences between persons of mature age and those who are minors for

purposes of sentencing.” Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74. In Moore, the supreme court pointed out

that “ ‘the essential legal tools’ ” had always been available for petitioners to use during initial

postconviction proceedings. Moore, 2023 IL 126461, ¶ 42 (quoting People v. Clark, 2023 IL

127273, ¶ 93); see People v. Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶¶ 46, 48 (directing defendant to raise similar

claim in initial postconviction petition).

¶ 31 After considering Dorsey and Moore, we accept Brewer’s concession that Miller does not

provide him with cause to pursue his claim under the proportionate penalties clause. See

Kathrein v. City of Evanston, 752 F.3d 680, 685 (7th Cir. 2014) (noting courts have good reason

to depart from law of case when, after prior appeal, the United States Supreme Court issues

decision inconsistent with case under review).

¶ 32 No Factual Basis for Cause

¶ 33 Brewer argues that (i) we previously found a factual basis for cause and (ii) recent

developments in the scientific community provide essential facts supporting his claim. The record

does not support his assertions.

-8- ¶ 34 Contrary to Brewer’s initial argument, we determined that cause was established by

referencing a line of cases that the Illinois Supreme Court has since abrogated or overruled.

Brewer II, 2021 IL App (1st) 172314-U, ¶¶ 21-26 (citing People v. Minniefield, 2020 IL App (1st)

170541, and People v. Carrasquillo, 2020 IL App (1st) 180534). The court in Minniefield found

that “defendant could not have raised a specific claim based on Miller and its progeny,

where Miller was yet to be decided for another five years.” Minniefield, 2020 IL App (1st) 170541,

¶ 31. Similarly, in Carrasquillo, we found that “defendant could not have anticipated the Miller

line of cases starting in 2012 and certainly could not have raised a claim based on a line of cases

that had not even been decided yet.” Carrasquillo, 2020 IL App (1st) 180534, ¶ 108. Neither of

these cases are considered good law anymore. See Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74; Moore, 2023 IL

126461, ¶ 42.

¶ 35 Although Brewer overstates Brewer II, he nonetheless highlights a significant tension in

Illinois sentencing law. There seems to have been a shift following the United States Supreme

Court’s opinion in Miller. While the Illinois Supreme Court recently reiterated that “ ‘the essential

legal tools’ ” have always been ready for emerging adult petitioners to pick up during initial

postconviction proceedings (Moore, 2023 IL 126461, ¶ 42 (quoting Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶ 93)),

the numerous petitions filed and cases decided since Miller indicate something else.

¶ 36 Brewer’s second argument addresses this change. While he identifies potential

developments, he has yet to support his claim with evidence on the record, as required by the Act.

¶ 37 Brewer argues that he has “new evidence supporting his claim that did not exist at the time

of his earlier proceedings.” (Emphasis in original.) He cited in his successive petition seeking leave

to file in 2017, two scientific studies, both from 2015. But his primary contention relies on a study

-9- published after the filing of his successive petition, which he cites to argue that “scientific research

show[s] that his brain was more like a juvenile than an adult.” He indicates that the research cited

in this study was “published between 2013 and 2022” and is “directly related to the brain

development of individuals over 18.” He describes the study as “new scientific research,” “a

significant amount of scientific development,” “a turning point in the research,” “a consensus,”

and a “conclusive[ ] determin[ation].”

¶ 38 The cited paper appears in the appendix to Brewer’s opening brief. Consequently, the

circuit court was unaware of it. We have reviewed the study, “White Paper on the Science of Late

Adolescence: A Guide for Judges, Attorneys and Policy Makers,” which summarizes

“mainstream” thought in “developmental neuroscience” as of 2022, “the time it was produced.”

Catherine Insel et al., White Paper on the Science of Late Adolescence: A Guide for Judges,

Attorneys, and Policy Makers (Feb. 2022)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358413055_White_Paper_on_the_Science_of_Late_A

dolescence_A_Guide_for_Judges_Attorneys_and_Policy_Makers [https://perma.cc/26HY-

6Q7T]. In the executive summary, the authors state that “scientific research has emerged which

reinforces the reasoning of the Miller decision and, if its implications are accepted, extends much

of the science that resonated with the Miller court to late adolescents (ages 18-21).” (Emphasis

added.) Id. at 2. The authors also state in the introduction that researchers can now “identify the

‘transient immaturity’ of youth and emerging young adults and the normal process of self-

desistance from criminal misconduct that occurs with maturation,” based on “a robust scientific

basis.” Id. at 6-7.

- 10 - ¶ 39 Arguing that he has established cause, Brewer compares his case and its connection to his

sentencing claim with the claim raised in Blalock. There, the Illinois Supreme Court found that

“pattern and practice” evidence provided a factual basis for litigating a second successive petition

where the police had tortured the petitioner into making an inculpatory statement. Blalock, 2022

IL 126682, ¶¶ 41-46. The petitioner attached new evidence in his petition, including printouts from

the 2012 Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission database, affidavits from other alleged victims

of abuse by the detectives involved, and complaints made to the Office of Professional Standards.

Id. ¶¶ 30, 40. The supreme court held that the petitioner had established cause because, while

Blalock knew about the torture before trial, he lacked corroborating evidence to support his claim

when filing his petition for postconviction relief. Id. ¶¶ 41-46.

¶ 40 Contrary to Brewer’s assertion, we find that Blalock does not apply to his situation. See

Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d at 460 (discussing “cause”). By appending this paper to his opening brief

before this court, Brewer has failed to present the circuit court with the key factual bases for his

claim. See Blalock, 2022 IL 126682, ¶¶ 30, 40 (recounting evidence petitioner cited in support of

claim). Even assuming the appended paper contains relevant information to his claim, his briefing

highlights how critical factual issues remain unresolved. While the study presents a “robust

scientific basis” for applying certain scientific insights from Miller to emerging adults, this

emerging field has yet to reach what Brewer calls a “conclusive[ ] determin[ation].” As the

supreme court has repeatedly held, unlike juveniles, emerging adults must adhere to the Act’s

filing requirements when litigating sentencing claims. See People v. Holman, 2017 IL 120655,

¶¶ 31-32 (finding, under “very narrow exception,” record sufficient to review juvenile’s as-applied

- 11 - sentencing claim). Given this, we cannot make findings about cause when Brewer fails to draw

the conclusions from the study.

¶ 41 Indeed, 10 years ago, our supreme court declined to resolve an emerging adult’s sentencing

claim in Thompson because the record contained “nothing about how that science applies to the

circumstances of [the] case” and “[n]or *** any factual development on the issue of whether the

rationale of Miller should be extended beyond minors under the age of 18.” Thompson, 2015 IL

118151, ¶ 38.

¶ 42 The law has not yet reached the juncture where neuroscience compels recognition of the

claims of emerging adults in the same manner as the claims of juveniles. See, e.g., Davis, 2014 IL

115595, ¶ 43 (finding Miller, 567 U.S. 460, provided cause for juvenile to file successive petition);

Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶ 60 (noting “line drawn by the [United States] Supreme Court at age 18

was not based primarily on scientific research”). Illinois courts should rely on their own case law,

wisdom, and reason to interpret state constitutional provisions. See People v. Lindsey, 199 Ill. 2d

460, 467-68 (2002) (citing People v. McCauley, 163 Ill. 2d 414, 439 (1994)).

¶ 43 Illinois courts have long allowed newly discovered evidence to inform their understanding

of state constitutional guarantees, both in terms of their general meanings and their applications in

specific cases. For example, the supreme court has held “as a matter of Illinois constitutional

jurisprudence that a claim of newly discovered evidence showing a defendant to be actually

innocent of the crime for which he was convicted is cognizable as a matter of due process.” People

v. Washington, 171 Ill. 2d 475, 489 (1996); see People v. Coleman, 2013 IL 113307, ¶ 91, (holding

defendants may raise innocence claims in successive proceedings under the Act); People v. Reed,

- 12 - 2020 IL 124940, ¶ 41 (holding defendants who plead guilty may raise innocence claims under the

Act).

¶ 44 The courts and the legislature act as guardians under our constitutional order. E.g.,

Washington, 171 Ill. 2d at 489 (observing “the limited avenues that our legislature has so far seen

fit to provide for raising freestanding claims of innocence”); People v. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327,

¶ 34 (“choos[ing]” to follow legislature’s lead when defining a de facto life sentence under Illinois

law). Yet, “[g]reat constitutional provisions must be administered with caution.” (Internal

quotation marks omitted.) Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶ 40; see generally Taylor, 102 Ill. 2d at 205-

06 (“Article I, section 11, of the Constitution is applicable to the legislature as well as to courts.”).

Newly discovered facts enable the courts and the legislature to address the claims of emerging

adults who, due to no fault of their own, must litigate in successive postconviction proceedings.

Compare Moore, 2023 IL 126461, ¶ 42 (noting petitioners (like Brewer) have “ ‘the essential legal

tools’ ” (quoting Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶ 93)), with Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶ 46 (noting absence

of pertinent facts for claims like Brewer’s).

¶ 45 Further adjudicating factual cause or reaching the substance of Brewer’s claim must await

a different proceeding, if at all. See Blalock, 2022 IL 126682, ¶¶ 41-46 (finding petitioner

established factual basis for cause to litigate second successive postconviction petition). It is worth

noting that Illinois courts have already begun litigating the substance of claims like Brewer’s. See

People v. Green-Hosey, 2025 IL App (2d) 240284, ¶ 61 (affirming grant of postconviction relief

to emerging adult who successfully litigated as-applied claim in initial petition), appeal allowed,

No. 131560 (Ill. Sept. 24, 2025). Still, we do not see how we can address these issues as presented

by Brewer, particularly since he appended a crucial study to the opening brief before this court.

- 13 - What the supreme court said in Harris applies equally here: “As in Thompson, the record here

does not contain evidence about 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.” Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶ 46.

¶ 46 Brewer has not demonstrated factual cause that would entitle him to litigate a successive

petition, and we do not reach his further contention regarding a substantial showing of a

constitutional violation. See Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 26 (noting State may contest cause at

second stage of postconviction proceedings).

¶ 47 Reasonable Assistance

¶ 48 Brewer contends that his counsel provided unreasonable assistance by (i) failing to

“supplement or amend” his petition to demonstrate how scientific research applies to his

sentencing claim and (ii) failing to argue alternatively that both trial and appellate counsel were

ineffective for not framing his earlier youth-based challenges to his sentence under the

proportionate penalties clause. We disagree.

¶ 49 Petitioners have the right to reasonable assistance when pursuing postconviction claims,

which includes the guidance of lawyers who can properly present their claims. People v. Addison,

2023 IL 127119, ¶ 19. To that end, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 651(c) (eff. July 1, 2017) requires

that counsel consult a petitioner, examine pertinent parts of the record underlying their conviction,

and make necessary amendments to their claims.

¶ 50 Counsel must substantially comply with Rule 651(c); a certificate of compliance creates a

rebuttable presumption that they have done so. Addison, 2023 IL 127119, ¶ 21. A petitioner can

challenge this presumption by referencing the record and showing how counsel fell short in

- 14 - presenting a claim. Id. We review counsel’s compliance de novo. See People v. Morgan,

2025 IL 130626, ¶ 51 (de novo when reviewing evidence is “documentary in nature”).

¶ 51 Brewer asserts counsel failed to supplement or amend his sentencing claim, seemingly

overlooking counsel’s on-the-record efforts. Counsel submitted a character letter from an associate

professor who met Brewer at Statesville Correctional Center, alongside 89 certificates Brewer

received from prison programs. This action was in line with the obligation to present Brewer’s

claim. See People v. Williams, 2024 IL 127304, ¶¶ 35-36 (providing example of petitioner-specific

allegations pertinent to as-applied claim for emerging adult). Brewer’s potential for rehabilitation

was a core element of his claim. See Green-Hosey, 2025 IL App (2d) 240284, ¶¶ 57-59 (discussing

elements, including rehabilitation, of as-applied claim under proportionate penalties clause).

¶ 52 Nevertheless, Brewer maintains that additional amendments should have been filed

“specifically applying the emerging scientific research on brain development to [his] facts and

circumstances.” Counsel filed a certificate stating that he had consulted with Brewer and that the

alleged facts were “true and correct and represent[ed] the entirety of [Brewer’s] claim.”

Consequently, counsel certified that the entirety of Brewer’s claim was presented in amended

form. While Brewer may disagree with this certification, the presumption of compliance is strong,

and counsel’s certification remains unrebutted. Addison, 2023 IL 127119, ¶ 21 (record must

demonstrate how counsel failed).

¶ 53 Moreover, we note that counsel’s strategy on remand closely followed Brewer II, which

the supreme court has implicitly overruled. Supra ¶ 29. Generally, counsel does not act

unreasonably by adhering to our statements of law during ongoing litigation. See People v.

Patterson, 154 Ill. 2d 414, 468-69 (1992) (discussing “law of the case” doctrine). But to the extent

- 15 - that our previous decision may have adversely affected the fairness of the remand proceedings, the

supreme court could intervene by granting supervisory relief. See generally In re J.T.,

221 Ill. 2d 338, 348 (2006) (considering whether “the normal appellate process cannot provide

adequate relief” as prerequisite to granting supervisory relief).

¶ 54 The supreme court has recently indicated that petitioners like Brewer have always

possessed the necessary legal tools to raise claims related to sentencing. See Dorsey, 2021 IL

123010, ¶ 74; Moore, 2023 IL 126461, ¶ 42. Consistent with this observation, Brewer contends

that counsel should have amended the petition to allege that trial and appellate counsel failed to

frame his sentencing contentions under the proportionate penalties clause properly.

¶ 55 But, this petition was not his first under the Act. If the essential legal tools were available

to counsel before postconviction proceedings, they were also available to Brewer when he

prepared his initial petition for postconviction relief. See Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010, ¶ 74; Moore,

2023 IL 126461, ¶ 42. Under the logic of Dorsey and Moore, Brewer’s criticism of postconviction

counsel’s performance is unfounded. He cannot show that counsel provided unreasonable

assistance during successive postconviction proceedings by failing to make an amendment Brewer

had “waived” when litigating his initial postconviction petition. See 725 ILCS 5/122-3 (West

2022) (defining waiver under Act).

¶ 56 Conclusion

¶ 57 The record before us offers no basis to find that Brewer may litigate his claim in successive

postconviction proceedings.

¶ 58 Affirmed.

- 16 - People v. Brewer, 2025 IL App (1st) 240088

Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 01-CR- 18452; the Hon. Kenneth J. Wadas, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Lauren A. Bauser, of for State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant. Appellant:

Attorneys Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique for Abraham, Erin K. Slattery, and David H. Iskowich, Assistant Appellee: State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

- 17 -