Appeal from Circuit Court of Ford County No. 00JD32 Honorable Stephen R. Pacey, Judge Presiding
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice Turner
The State appeals the trial court's denial of its September 2000 motion to transfer jurisdiction over respondent minor, A.N., from juvenile court for trial as an adult for first degree murder. The State also seeks review of the trial court's September 2000 denial of its motion for substitution of judge. We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.
On September 5, 2000, the State filed a petition to adjudicate A.N. a ward of the court, alleging A.N. was delinquent because he committed the offense of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 1998)) by shooting his father, Earl Nutter, with a rifle. At a hearing on the State's motion for temporary detention, Judge Stephen R. Pacey received testimony from Patrick Duffy, an investigator for the Ford County sheriff's department, and granted the State's motion without objection from the guardian ad litem (GAL). After a telephone conference two days later, Judge Pacey allowed the State's motion for a social history and psychiatric examination of A.N., which motion was supported by the GAL.
On September 12, 2000, the State filed a motion for automatic substitution of judge pursuant to section 114-5(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Procedure Code) (725 ILCS 5/114-5(c) (West 1998)). The next day, Judge Pacey denied the State's motion to substitute judge based on his having made a substantive ruling, but he did not specify which ruling.
In October 2000, Judge Pacey held a hearing on the State's motion pursuant to section 5-805(3)(a) of the Juvenile Court of Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/5-805(3)(a) (West 2000)) for discretionary transfer of jurisdiction from the juvenile court for trial as an adult pursuant to the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/1-1 through 47-25 (West 2000)). Judge Pacey denied the State's motion to transfer jurisdiction, and the State appealed.
The State asserts we may review the trial court's denial of the State's motion to substitute judge in this interlocutory appeal even though that ruling is not final for purposes of appeal. We agree.
In Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center v. Berlin, 268 Ill. App. 3d 184, 186-87, 643 N.E.2d 276, 278 (1994), this court determined it could consider, in an interlocutory appeal from a preliminary injunction, whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for substitution of judge. We noted the propriety of an order granting or denying interlocutory injunctive relief could be determined only in an appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1) (155 Ill. 2d R. 307(a)(1)). Berlin, 268 Ill. App. 3d at 187, 643 N.E.2d at 278. We held the scope of review under Rule 307 is to review any prior error bearing directly upon the question of whether the order on appeal was proper. Berlin, 268 Ill. App. 3d at 187, 643 N.E.2d at 279.
The reasoning in Berlin applies to this case. The State's appeal in this case is permitted by Rule 604(a)(1) (188 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(1)). People v. Martin, 67 Ill. 2d 462, 464-65, 367 N.E.2d 1329, 1330-31 (1977). Were the State to proceed and present evidence in an adjudicatory hearing, the State would be barred from bringing criminal proceedings based on the conduct alleged in the delinquency petition. 705 ILCS 405/5-805(5) (West 2000). Therefore, the propriety of the trial court's ruling on the State's motion to transfer jurisdiction may be determined only in this appeal.
As we concluded in Berlin, 268 Ill. App. 3d at 187, 643 N.E.2d at 279, an erroneous refusal of a proper request for substitution of judge bears directly upon the question of whether the trial court's order on appeal, the State's transfer motion in this case, was proper. Accordingly, we may review the trial court's ruling on the State's motion to substitute judge.
We have jurisdiction to review the trial court's ruling on the State's motion to substitute judge even though the State failed to specify it in the State's notice of appeal because it is a step in the procedural progression leading to the specified judgment. See Jiffy Lube International, Inc. v. Agarwal, 277 Ill. App. 3d 722, 726-27, 661 N.E.2d 463, 467 (1996), citing Burtell v. First Charter Service Corp., 76 Ill. 2d 427, 435, 394 N.E.2d 380, 383 (1979). Had the State's motion to substitute judge been granted, ...