The Illinois Prisoner Review Board voted 3-0 on Friday to deny early release to the former Sangamon County sheriff's deputy who killed Sonya Massey [1][2].

Massey was 36. In July 2024 she called 911 to report a possible intruder at her home in Springfield, Illinois, and the deputy who responded shot her [1]. He was charged with first-degree murder, convicted of second-degree murder in October 2025, and sentenced in January to 20 years [1][2].

He petitioned for medical release in May under the Joe Coleman Act, citing stage 4 colon cancer [2]. He is roughly six months into the sentence [2]. A three-member panel meeting in Springfield turned him down unanimously [2].

The timing of the diagnosis is the fact the state built its opposition on, and it needs attributing carefully. ABC News reported that the Sangamon County State's Attorney's office opposed release, saying he was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer before the shooting and that his temper could pose a risk to the public [1]. CBS News reported that State's Attorney John Milhiser argued the cancer predated the crime and that the illness had already been weighed at sentencing, and that he called release a miscarriage of justice and an insult to Sonya Massey's memory and family [2]. Neither outlet published the underlying filing, and neither quotes the office directly on the date of the diagnosis. What is on the record is the office's position as two news organizations describe it, not a document.

Massey's family spent Friday saying what the ruling meant to them.

Her mother, Donna Massey, said: "I don't think I've seen one day since the day she died that I haven't cried. I've never been depressed before. Now, I'm depressed all the time, especially when they keep dragging us through the mud" [1].

Her son, Malachi Massey, went at the premise of a compassionate release directly: "It's not registering with me why he would want compassion because, like, say for instance, roles was reversed, or like, I was in his shoes, would he want compassion for us? No, he would not" [1]. He asked whether the deputy had extended any to his mother: "did he have compassion for my mother throughout that whole time? No, he did not" [1].

Her cousin, Sontae Massey, treated the denial as temporary: "We'll take these small victories, but we know we've got an uphill battle ahead of us because he can turn around and he can apply again and again and again. I think that he will not stop until he is out. We have to make sure that he is denied each and every time" [1].

That is the part of Friday's ruling most likely to be lost. Neither account reports any bar on refiling under the statute, and the family's stated expectation, on the record, is that they will be back in front of this board. A denial is an outcome for one petition.

The former deputy's own account has not moved. ABC News reported that in his handwritten request to the board he maintained that Massey attacked him, the same position he took in court testimony, where he said he believed she was going to throw water at him [1]. A jury heard that account and convicted him in 2025.

Ben Crump and Antonio Romanucci, who represent the family, said the board "made the right decision and reaffirmed the jury's verdict and the sentence the court imposed," and that "a badge does not provide an early way out" [2].

The board's reasoning is not in either account. Neither outlet reports what medical evidence the panel reviewed, what standard it applied under the Joe Coleman Act, or whether it made any finding at all on when the diagnosis was made. A 3-0 vote is a result rather than an explanation, and the difference matters for anyone trying to predict what happens the next time a petition arrives.

What the board settled on Friday is narrow. The man convicted of killing Sonya Massey will serve the sentence a judge gave him, for now. What it did not settle is how many more times her mother has to sit in a room and argue for it.