APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION
B.R., a Minor, Respondent-Appellant)
518 N.E.2d 301, 164 Ill. App. 3d 784, 115 Ill. Dec. 776 1987.IL.1817
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. James J. Chrastka, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE LINN delivered the opinion of the court. McMORROW, P.J., and Johnson, J., concur.
DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE LINN
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record shows that the incident giving rise to the allegations in the petition occurred in a wooded area of River Forest, Illinois, about 3:30 p.m., on February 8, 1986. A probable cause hearing was conducted two days later, and at that time River Forest police officer Thomas Ludvik testified that on the date in question he and his partner responded to a call of an armed robbery in the area of Thatcher and Hawthorne. There he met Joseph Murrell, Frank Marcico, David Healy, and Healy's parents and was informed that the three boys had been robbed by six Latino youths who had a crowbar. Healy told him that the offenders had taken a pair of black vinyl gloves from him, and Marcico stated that he had been threatened with a crowbar and that $2 had been taken from him. Murrell informed him that the offenders had taken a pair of blue thermal gloves from him and that they had struck him twice on the back with a crowbar.
The officer then went to First Avenue and Lake Street, where he observed six youths running northbound into the wooded area which was located there. He and his partner apprehended them and took them to the station, where the victims identified them as the persons who had attacked them. At the hearing Ludvik identified four of these individuals, including respondent.
At the Conclusion of this testimony, the court entered a finding of probable cause, and the proceedings were continued variously on two occasions until May 5, 1986, when respondent and his three cohorts appeared before the court accompanied by respective counsel. At that time the State presented a motion to dismiss the supplemental petition which had been filed regarding the respondent and it was accepted by the court. The court then ascertained who was present on behalf of each youth, and respondent advised the court that his mother and brother were with him.
At that point respondent's counsel informed the court of his clients' desire to withdraw the previously entered denials as to count I of each petition, and asked the court to accept ...