In Re Committment of Hernandez
239 Ill. 2d 195
| Ill. | 2010Background
- Respondent Benjamin Hernandez was adjudicated a sexually violent person in 2004.
- Dispositional hearing in 2005 ordered DHS to prepare a conditional release plan meeting minimum DHS requirements.
- In April 2007 the State informed the court no conditional release plan had been received; the court’s intention to conditionally release triggered DHS plan obligations.
- On July 3, 2007 the court stated it would order conditional release and ordered a 13-page plan due September 21, 2007; the State filed a notice of appeal on August 20, 2007.
- September 21, 2007 the court approved DHS’s conditional release plan; the State did not file a new appeal.
- By May 2009 the State moved to revoke the plan due to violations; respondent was returned to DHS custody, rendering the appeal moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the State’s notice of appeal timely under Rule 303(a)(1)? | Hernandez argues final order was July 3; notice timely under Rule 303(a)(1). | Hernandez contends final order was September 21; Rule 303(a)(1) does not save premature appeal. | No; Rule 303(a)(1) did not save the premature notice. |
| Does mootness bar the appeal and preclude relief? | State seeks review despite mootness to clarify law. | Mootness divests court of power to grant relief; no live controversy. | Appeal dismissed as moot. |
| Whether the public-interest exception to mootness applies. | Question is of public nature requiring authoritative guidance. | State fails to show required factors; no need for authoritative resolution. | Public-interest exception not satisfied; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Felzak v. Hruby, 226 Ill.2d 382 (Ill. 2007) (public-interest mootness standard; substantial public nature and need for guidance)
- In re J.T., 221 Ill.2d 338 (Ill. 2006) (mootness and exception discussion framework)
- Eclipse Manufacturing Co. v. United States Compliance Co., 381 Ill.App.3d 127 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 2007) (Rule 303(a)(1) interpretation for notices of appeal after oral decision but before written order)
- In re Adoption of Ginnell, 316 Ill.App.3d 789 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 2000) (finality analysis for orders and judgments)
- In re M.M., 337 Ill.App.3d 764 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 2003) (finality and mootness principles in appellate review)
- Peters-Farrell v. Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill.2d 287 (Ill. 2005) (public-interest exception criteria for mootness)
- Randall M., 231 Ill.2d 122 (Ill. 2008) (illinois mootness and advisory opinions considerations)
- Adoption of Ginnell, 316 Ill.App.3d 789 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 2000) (finality and timing of appellate jurisdiction)