APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Adams County; the Hon. PAUL
A. KOLODZIEJ, Judge, presiding.
MR. JUSTICE TRAPP DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:
Defendant appeals from the orders adjudicating him a ward of the court and a delinquent minor and imposing a year's probation in the custody of his parents.
On November 29, 1978, the adjudication order was entered upon his admission of committing a burglary with several other minors. On December 15, while disposition was pending, defendant was subpoenaed to testify in the delinquency hearings involving his companions. The report of proceedings show a conference off the record and the following colloquy:
"MR. LEEPER: Your Honor, at this time the State grants a blanket immunity to the minor with regard to anything he might say or anything that might arise out of his statements today.
THE COURT: To clarify, would that be true as to everything that is directly related or indirectly related to the subject matter of the present case?
MR. LEEPER: Yes, your Honor, directly or indirectly related.
THE COURT: And would it extend to other matters not related at all to the present case?
MR. LEEPER: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: The record will show that the Court for the witness does accept the offer of immunity and that the same is intended at this point to reflect retroactively to include all the interrogation and answers by of and by this witness."
On January 5, 1979, defendant filed a motion for discharge and dismissal of the proceedings, alleging that the proceedings concerning immunity on December 15, 1978, created a transactional immunity. The trial court denied the motion with a ruling that the adjudication of "delinquency" was a final appealable order by reason of the language of section 4-8(3) of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1978 Supp., ch. 37, par. 704-8(3)), and that the granting of immunity following that adjudication was a useless act.
On January 16, 1979, defendant filed motions for rehearing upon his motion for discharge by reason of the transactional immunity and a motion to vacate the adjudication of wardship and withdraw the admissions. The motions were argued in the context of whether or not the immunity was effective in the light of the "appealable order" of adjudication and the effect of Supreme Court Rule 662(a) (65 Ill.2d R. 662(a)), which provides that an appeal may be taken from an adjudication of wardship "in the event that an order of disposition has not been entered within ninety days of the adjudication of wardship."
Upon the motion to vacate the adjudication, the defendant correlatively argued that if the order of adjudication was appealable, the court had failed to admonish defendants under Supreme Court Rules 604(d) withdrawal of plea, and 605(b) the right to appeal within 30 days (58 Ill.2d R. 604(d), R. 605(b)). Supreme Court Rule 660(a) provides that appeals in delinquency proceedings "shall be governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases." (65 Ill.2d R. 660(a).)
The trial court adhered to its ruling, saying:
"I do not feel that it would have served any purpose whatsoever to advise the minor at the date of his adjudication that he had a right to appeal but he would have to wait and see ...