No. 18-9451

Denzel Pittman v. Illinois

Lower Court: Illinois
Docketed: 2019-05-31
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review civil-rights criminal-case criminal-procedure due-process illinois-law judicial-mandate juvenile-justice mental-health petition-for-leave-to-appeal second-amendment self-regulation standing supreme-court takings
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)

A defendant, whose age falls on the Adult side of the Miller height line, is entitled under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution to the same consideration as juveniles identified in Miller where this lower court does not address constitutional questions not before it and the plethora of scientific evidence this Court utilized in its Miller analysis indicates the brain does not reach maturity until the mid twenties with no distinction in brain development between 17-year old juveniles and 18-year old young adults.

Whether certiorari should be granted to determine if Article I, section 11 of the Illinois state constitution, which is at least co-extensive with the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause where judges are not allowed to consider a defendant's chronological age and its hallmark features among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences before sentencing a young adult to a lifetime in prison without the possibility of parole.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess firearms for self-defense outside the home

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-06-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-03
Waiver of right of respondent Illinois to respond filed.
2019-02-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 1, 2019)

Attorneys

Denzel Pittman
Denzel Pittman — Petitioner
Illinois
Michael Marc Glick — Respondent