In re Jarquan B.
2016 IL App (1st) 161180
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- In Dec. 2014 Jarquan B. (a minor) pleaded guilty to Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass to a motor vehicle and received 12 months’ court supervision (Feb. 26, 2015).
- After multiple supervision/probation violations (admissions to petitions in Oct. and Nov. 2015 and further violations), the court warned he could be committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).
- Illinois amended 705 ILCS 405/5-710(1)(b) effective Jan. 1, 2016, to prohibit committing juveniles to DJJ for misdemeanor offenses.
- The juvenile court, relying on section 5-720(4) (authorizing any sentence available under section 5-710 at the time of the initial sentence), committed Jarquan to the DJJ on Apr. 26, 2016 for his probation violation.
- Appellate court affirmed the DJJ commitment but modified the mittimus to add 41 days’ credit for time on electronic monitoring.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court could commit a minor to DJJ for a misdemeanor probation violation after the Jan. 1, 2016 amendment to section 5-710(1)(b) | The State: section 5-720(4) allows the court to impose any sentence that was available under section 5-710 at the time of the initial sentence, so DJJ commitment remained available | Jarquan: the 2016 amendment to section 5-710(1)(b) bars DJJ commitments for misdemeanors after Jan. 1, 2016 and thus precludes his April 26, 2016 commitment | Affirmed: section 5-720(4) required using the sentencing options available at initial sentencing (2015), so DJJ commitment was authorized despite the 2016 amendment; the mittimus was corrected to add 41 days’ credit for EHM |
Key Cases Cited
- Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (two-step test for temporal reach of statutes and retroactivity analysis)
- People v. Davis, 97 Ill. 2d 1 (1983) (law in effect at time of offense governs absent express retroactivity)
- Caveney v. Bower, 207 Ill. 2d 82 (2003) (Statute on Statutes guides temporal application of amendments)
- People v. Gancarz, 228 Ill. 2d 312 (2008) (distinction between substantive, procedural, and mitigating statutory change)
- In re Dexter L., 334 Ill. App. 3d 557 (2002) (public-interest exception to mootness for juvenile detention issues)
- Novak v. Rathnam, 106 Ill. 2d 478 (1985) (mootness doctrine explained)
- People v. Clayborn, 90 Ill. App. 3d 1047 (1980) (juvenile detention matters are of public concern)
- General Motors Corp. v. State Motor Vehicle Review Bd., 224 Ill. 2d 1 (2007) (legislative intent is determined from statutory language)