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 C.L.P.

July 10, 2002

IN RE C.L.P., A MINOR
(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER-APPELLEE,
v.
C.L.P., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT).



Appeal from the Circuit Court of Winnebago County. No. 00--JD--33 Honorable Steven M. Nash, Judge, Presiding.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice Callum

Released for publication.

IN RE C.L.P., A MINOR
(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER-APPELLEE,
v.
C.L.P., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Winnebago County. No. 00--JD--33 Honorable Steven M. Nash, Judge, Presiding.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice Callum

The minor respondent, C.L.P. (the minor), born June 10, 1986, appeals from a final dispositional order of the circuit court that committed him to the Department of Corrections, Juvenile Division (DOC), for an indeterminate term. The minor contends that the dispositional order violated section 5--710(7) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/5--710(7) (West 2000)) because, as written, the order would allow him to remain committed to the DOC for a period greater than the period for which an adult could be sentenced for the same act. The minor asserts that he is therefore entitled to have the dispositional order vacated and the cause remanded for the entry of a new dispositional order that complies with section 5--710(7). The minor also asserts that the new order should include credit for the time that he served in custody prior to the disposition. For the reasons that follow, we modify the dispositional order so that it complies with section 5--710(7) and otherwise affirm.

We recite the facts only to the extent necessary for an understanding of the issues presented. On January 24, 2000, the State filed a petition alleging that the minor was delinquent. As amended, the petition alleged that the minor committed aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12--4(b)(3) (West 2000)), aggravated assault (720 ILCS 5/12-- 2(a)(3) (West 2000)), and two counts of disorderly conduct (720 ILCS 5/26--1(a)(1) (West 2000)). All of the offenses, except the aggravated assault and one of the counts of disorderly conduct, were alleged to have occurred on different dates.

On March 13, 2000, pursuant to an agreement, the minor admitted to aggravated battery and to the two counts of disorderly conduct. The charge of aggravated assault was dismissed. The State also refrained from filing an additional assault charge. After accepting the minor's admissions, the trial court adjudicated him delinquent, made him a ward of the court, and placed him on probation for two years.

On April 21, 2000, and May 18, 2000, the State filed separate petitions to revoke the minor's probation. On August 31, 2000, after the minor admitted some of the allegations in the petitions, the trial court found that the minor had violated his probation. On September 1, 2000, the trial court committed the minor to the DOC and specified that the matter was set for review on December 5, 2000. On December 5, 2000, the trial court reinstated the minor's probation.

On January 2, 2001, the State filed a third petition to revoke the minor's probation. As amended, the third petition alleged that on January 1, 2001, the minor committed mob action and violated his probation by associating with other minors on probation. On February 5, 2001, the trial court conducted a hearing on the third petition and found that the minor had violated his probation.

On February 9, 2001, the trial court entered a dispositional order and mittimus. The order committed the minor to the DOC for the offenses for which he had been placed on probation, i.e., one count of aggravated battery and two counts of disorderly conduct. The trial court stated that the minor was committed to the DOC for an indeterminate period. This court subsequently allowed the minor to file a late notice of appeal.

On appeal, the minor first contends that he is entitled to have the dispositional order vacated and the cause remanded for the entry of a new dispositional order because the trial court erred in committing him to the DOC for an indeterminate period. The minor argues that the dispositional order violated section 5--710(7) of the Act. The minor construes section 5--710(7) as prohibiting the commitment of a juvenile offender to the DOC for a period greater than the maximun adult sentence for the same offense. The minor maintains that, as written, the dispositional order allows him to remain in the DOC until he attains the age of 21 years. In the minor's view, the dispositional order violated section 5--710(7) because, if he remained in the DOC until he attained the age of 21 years, he would have been committed to the DOC for a period greater than the period for which an adult could be incarcerated for the same offense.

The State initially responds that the minor has waived this issue because he failed to raise it in the trial court. The minor counters that he may raise the issue at any time because the trial court's judgment was void to the extent that it violated section 5--710(7). We agree that the minor has framed an issue that could involve a void judgment, and a void judgment may be attacked at any time. People v. Wade, 116 Ill. 2d 1, 5 (1987). We will therefore address the merits of the issue.

The minor raises an issue of statutory construction. The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the true intent of the legislature. In re D.D., 196 Ill. 2d 405, 418 (2001). The best indication of legislative intent is the language of the statute. In re D.L., 191 Ill. 2d 1, 9 (2000). When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, a court may not read into it exceptions, limitations, or other conditions (D.D., 196 Ill. 2d at 419), and there is no need to resort to ...


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.