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 S.b.

OPINION FILED OCTOBER 10, 1984.

IN RE S.B., A MINOR (THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER-APPELLEE,

v.

S.B., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT).



Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. John W. Rogers, Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE WHITE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

The two-count petition for adjudication of wardship filed in reference to the minor respondent, S.B., alleged that he was delinquent in that he committed the offense of aggravated battery against both Bernie Cleveland and Victoria Cleveland. The first count alleged that respondent shot Bernie Cleveland in the left thigh with a revolver; the second count alleged that he shot Victoria Cleveland in the right arm with a revolver. Pursuant to an agreement with the State, respondent, represented by appointed counsel, entered an admission to the second count of the petition in exchange for the dismissal of the first count and a recommendation by the State of a two-year period of probation. The trial court made a finding of delinquency based upon the admission and found that it was in the best interest of respondent and the public that he be made a ward of the court. After a dispositional hearing, the trial court refused to follow the State's recommendation of two years' probation and committed respondent to the Juvenile Division of the Department of Corrections. Subsequently, S.B. filed a motion to withdraw his admission. This motion was denied, and respondent now appeals.

Respondent first raises two issues as to the adequacy of the proceedings in the court below at the time of his "admission." First, he contends that the trial judge failed to admonish him that he was not bound by the State's recommendation of probation and that this failure constituted a denial of due process of law. In making this argument, respondent, citing In re Beasley (1977), 66 Ill.2d 385, 391, 362 N.E.2d 1024, cert. denied (1978), 434 U.S. 1016, 54 L.Ed.2d 761, 98 S.Ct. 734, concedes that Supreme Rule 402 (87 Ill.2d R. 402), which sets forth standards governing the acceptance of guilty pleas in criminal proceedings, does not apply to juvenile court actions. He does, however, rely on the following language from our supreme court's opinion in Beasley:

"Since * * * the specific requirements of Rule 402 are not applicable to the peculiar protective procedures granted to juveniles, in the context of the instant case the quoted language from [section 1-2(3)(a) of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 37, par. 701-2(3)(a))] means only that admissions in a Juvenile Court Act proceeding are entitled to protection at least equal to that constitutionally required for the making of guilty pleas in criminal trials. That is, the admission must be made intelligently and voluntarily, though not necessarily in accordance with Rule 402." (66 Ill.2d 385, 391, 362 N.E.2d 1024.)

Later, in the same opinion, our supreme court stated:

"It is sufficient to satisfy due process requirements that it be apparent from the record that the minors were aware of the consequences of their admissions; that is, that they understood their rights against self-incrimination, their rights to confront their accusers and their rights to a trial; that by the admissions they waived these rights and that the waiver conferred upon the court the authority to treat them in a manner authorized by the Juvenile Court Act." 66 Ill.2d 385, 392, 362 N.E.2d 1024.

In our opinion, it is apparent from the record that the respondent understood his rights and was aware of the consequences of his admission. At the adjudicatory hearing, the court and the respondent engaged in the following colloquy:

"THE COURT: * * * I want you * * * to understand that if you admit to these charges I have the authority and could commit you to the Juvenile Division of the Department of Corrections which could place you in a program, institution which it considers proper until you reach the age of 21 years; or you could be placed on probation for a period up to five years or until you reach the age of 21 years, whichever comes first; or you could be held in the Audy Home for a period up to 30 days; or as a condition of your probation you could be required to serve up to 30 days in the Audy Home. You understand the possible consequences of making an admission to that charge?

RESPONDENT: Yes.

THE COURT: I want * * * you to further understand you have a right not to enter an admission to this petition and a right to continue your denial of the charges. You understand that, [S.B.]?

RESPONDENT: Yes.

THE COURT: * * * In your case, [S.B.], there is an agreement that you be placed on probation — at least the State would recommend that you be placed on probation for a period of two years if the Court accepts your admission. You understand that?

RESPONDENT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Has anyone made any promises or threats to * * * you, your parents, your attorney, any of your friends or anyone else in order to get you to make this admission. What is your answer to that [S.B.]? Has anyone made any promises to you, any threats ...


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.