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 Jones

OPINION FILED JUNE 16, 1980.

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

v.

DENNIS JONES, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.)



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. STEPHEN R. YATES, Judge, presiding.

MR. JUSTICE CAMPBELL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to a petition for adjudication of wardship, and a subsequent delinquency finding on September 12, 1977, respondent, a minor, was committed to the Department of Corrections under the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 37, par. 701-1 et seq.). This appeal followed.

Respondent has presented the following issues for review:

(1) Whether the trial judge, who placed the minor on one year probation on March 15, 1977, pursuant to a delinquency finding and who also committed him to the Department of Corrections on the same delinquency finding on September 12, 1977, inflicted multiple punishments for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy clauses of both the United States Constitution and Illinois Constitution.

(2) Whether a minor who was placed on one-year probation on March 15, 1977, was deprived of due process when the trial court on September 12, 1977, committed him to the Department of Corrections on the same original delinquency petition without a finding of a probation violation.

(3) Whether the trial judge who induced the minor's admissions to the charges with a promise that he would not commit the minor to the Department of Corrections properly required that this promise be fulfilled or that respondent be allowed to withdraw his admissions.

(4) Whether the court properly modified the disposition of respondent's case based upon a prior plea agreement which the court had agreed to after changed circumstances were brought to the court's attention.

We shall first consider the last issue relating to the matter of a prior plea agreement. Respondent, in his brief, claims that the following matters occurred prior to the order of commitment on September 12, 1977.

On February 21, 1977, a petition No. 77J 1719 for adjudication of wardship was filed in the Juvenile Division of the circuit court charging respondent with burglary (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 19-1). The public defender was appointed, and a denial to the charge was entered. Respondent's brief further claims that on March 15, 1977, the trial judge informed the respondent that he was going to participate in a conference relative to a possible acceptance of certain admissions from him in connection with a negotiated settlement. The brief contains the following colloquy from the report of proceedings from the record on the same day:

"MR. MICHAEL [Prosecutor]: Your Honor, the agreement that we have discussed in chambers with the public defender and the Court involves admissions to Petitions 77 1179 and 77 1097. Those are the two petitions.

MS. ECKERT [Public Defender]: 1719?

MR. MICHAEL [Prosecutor]: Lines 22 and 28. There are two additional petitions which have been advanced and reset from Thursday on Calendar 12 to this courtroom today. Those two petitions, pursuant to the pretrial agreement, the State intends to have Stricken On Leave to Reinstate.

THE COURT: This is Dennis Jones before me, is that correct?

MS. ECKERT [Public Defender]: Yes, sir.

MS. ECKERT: Your Honor, if I may, there has been a conference between the State's Attorney and myself.

During that conference, the State's Attorney communicated to me —

THE COURT: What will the date be on this progress record?

MR. MICHAEL: 4/25

MS. ECKERT: — That if Dennis Jones were to withdraw his previously entered denial as to two counts of burglary; specifically, 77J 1097 and 77J 1719 and at this time enter an admission, they would SOL the other two counts — petitions that are against him from Calendar 12.

THE COURT: Public Defender, I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's my understanding a year's probation, referral to UDIS [Uniform Delinquent Intervention Service] — Oh, see what you're saying.

You mean that he can't get DOC if UDIS doesn't want him.

THE COURT: I mean, the feeling was that whether or not UDIS became involved or they were referred, that DOC would not be an alternative disposition, is that correct, ...


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.