Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Wilson

OPINION FILED JULY 23, 1976.

IN RE KENNETH WILSON, A MINOR. — (THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER-APPELLEE,

v.

KENNETH WILSON, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.)



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. PETER F. COSTA, Judge, presiding.

MR. JUSTICE SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

This is an appeal from an order of the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court, committing respondent, a minor, to the Department of Corrections (D.O.C.). At issue are the questions of whether the court improperly considered respondent's prior station adjustments *fn1 in determining proper disposition and whether the court abused its discretion by allegedly failing to consider either the Unified Delinquency Intervention Service (UDIS) program or probation as an alternative to commitment.

A delinquency petition, alleging the offense of burglary and seeking an adjudication of wardship was filed against respondent. Following an adjudicatory hearing, he was adjudged a ward of the court upon a finding of delinquency. A dispositional hearing was subsequently held, at which a probation officer reported to the court concerning a social investigation that he made of respondent:

"Probation Officer: * * * His background, at this point, indicates the following station adjustments: On 10-21-71, burglary; 11-24-71, burglary; on 12-5-71, theft; on 12-16-

The Court: These are station adjustments.

Probation Officer: Yes.

The Court: So it isn't fair to say I need these offenses.

These matters were brought to the attention of the police and adjusted at the station.

Probation Officer: (Continuing) 12-16-71, adjusted for theft; 9-21-73, he was adjusted for another theft.

The youth has the following court referrals: 8-24-72, theft; at that time, he was placed on supervision; 3-1-73, he was placed on supervision for a period of six months; he was also referred to court on a burglary charge, that was 12-14-73, found delinquent and placed on probation for a period of six months. That probation was terminated satisfactorily."

The probation officer also stated that respondent was not attending school and was living with his mother and eight other siblings; that his mother stated respondent "did pretty much as he pleased on the street"; and that respondent showed no initiative of any type.

Respondent's attorney then suggested probation as a proper disposition, but the State's attorney argued against supervision, probation, or the UDIS program inasmuch as respondent had indicated no change of attitude after having been previously given probation and supervision. Thereupon, the court committed respondent to D.O.C.

OPINION

• 1 Respondent first contends that the court erred in considering his station adjustments in its deliberation regarding his commitment. However, we note the following language of section 5-1(1) of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.