People v. Conwell

── People v. Conwell ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (1st) 240714 SIXTH DIVISION June 5, 2026 No. 1-24-0714 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Cook County. Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) No. 97CR15419 ) JOHNNY CONWELL, ) Honorable ) James B. Novy, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. PRESIDING JUSTICE C.A. WALKER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justice Hyman concurred in the judgment and opinion. Justice Hyman also specially concurred, with opinion, joined by Presiding Justice C.A. Walker. Justice Gamrath dissented, with opinion. OPINION ¶1 This appeal concerns whether a person barely 18 years old and sentenced to mandatory natural life without the possibility of a lesser sentence may proceed on a successive postconviction claim that this sentence violates the proportionate penalties clause. No. 1-24-0714 ¶2 Following a severed bench trial at which the circuit court heard evidence relating to two separate indictments, defendant Johnny Conwell was found guilty of two counts of first degree murder and one count of attempted first degree murder stemming from the May 4, 1997, shooting death of Michael Williams, and the May 5, 1997, shooting death of Penny Simmons. Conwell was 18 years and 1 month old at the time he committed the offenses. The court additionally found Conwell guilty of multiple counts of attempted first degree murder and aggravated discharge of a firearm. After conducting a separate sentencing hearing, at which the court declined to impose the death penalty, Conwell was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On November 1, 2002, a summary order was entered rejecting Conwell’s Apprendi claim (see Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)) and directing the clerk of the circuit court to correct the mittimus to reflect a single conviction of first degree murder. A corrected mittimus was entered on November 27, 2002. ¶3 In 2002, Conwell filed a pro se petition for relief pursuant to the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2002)), alleging he was denied a fair trial when the court permitted him to be tried simultaneously on two first degree murder charges. He further asserted trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate the case, prepare an adequate defense, interview the State’s witnesses, or present witnesses on his behalf, thereby abandoning professional responsibilities. He also alleged prosecutorial misconduct, claiming the State employed improper tactics to prevent certain facts, information, and witnesses from being presented to the court. On November 27, 2002, the court summarily dismissed the petition. ¶4 Nearly two decades later, Conwell sought leave to file a successive petition for postconviction relief, relyi