In re Jarquan B.
65 N.E.3d 458
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- In Feb 2015 Jarquan B. pled guilty to misdemeanor criminal trespass to a motor vehicle and received 12 months’ supervision (court warned DJJ commitment was possible on violation).
- Multiple supervision/probation violations occurred in 2015–2016 (absconding, EHM violations); supervision revoked and he was placed on six months’ probation.
- Effective Jan 1, 2016, the Juvenile Court Act was amended (705 ILCS 405/5-710(1)(b)) to bar DJJ commitment for misdemeanants unless adult imprisonment in DOC is permitted.
- Despite the amendment, after further violations the juvenile court committed Jarquan to the Department of Juvenile Justice on April 26, 2016; mittimus credited 67 days in detention but not 41 days on electronic monitoring.
- Jarquan appealed, arguing the Jan 1, 2016 amendment precluded DJJ commitment for his misdemeanor-based probation violation and that he was due credit for home confinement/EHM time.
- The appellate majority affirmed the DJJ commitment as authorized under section 5-720(4) (sentence on probation revocation may be any sentence available under section 5-710 at time of initial sentence), but corrected the mittimus to add 41 days’ credit for EHM time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Jan 1, 2016 amendment to 5-710(1)(b) barred commitment to DJJ for a misdemeanor probation violation sentenced after the amendment | State: The court could commit because 5-720(4) allows imposing any sentence that was available under 5-710 at time of initial sentence (2015) | Jarquan: The 2016 amendment prohibited any DJJ commitment for misdemeanors after its effective date, so post-amendment sentencing to DJJ was unauthorized | Majority: Affirmed commitment — 5-720(4) controls and requires using the sentencing options available at initial sentencing (2015); amended 5-710(1)(b) does not bar this outcome |
| Whether amended 5-710(1)(b) is ambiguous about temporal reach | State: Amendment is clear — it took effect Jan 1, 2016 and restricts DJJ commitment when adult DOC imprisonment is not permitted | Jarquan/Dissent: Amendment is ambiguous as to temporal reach; legislative history shows intent to stop committing misdemeanants to DJJ after effective date | Majority: Statute is unambiguous; plain language prohibits DJJ commitment unless adult imprisonment allowed, but temporal application resolved by 5-720(4) |
| Whether 5-720(4) and the Statute on Statutes (5 ILCS 70/4) conflict over which law governs sentencing on probation revocation | Jarquan: Section 4 would allow application of mitigated penalties enacted before sentencing; thus he should benefit from amended 5-710 | State: 5-720(4) specifically governs probation revocation and requires using options available at initial sentence | Majority: Resolves conflict by treating specific 5-720(4) as exception to general Section 4; 5-720(4) controls |
| Whether mittimus should be corrected to credit time on electronic monitoring/home confinement | Jarquan: He should receive credit for 41 days on EHM/home confinement | State: Agreed that credits were owed | Held: Court corrected mittimus to add 41 days’ presentence credit |
Key Cases Cited
- Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (analysis for whether statute has retroactive effect)
- People v. Davis, 97 Ill.2d 1 (statute in effect at time of offense governs absent express retroactivity)
- Caveney v. Bower, 207 Ill.2d 82 (Statute on Statutes guides temporal reach of statutory amendments)
- People v. Gancarz, 228 Ill.2d 312 (distinguishing substantive vs procedural or mitigating changes)
- In re Dexter L., 334 Ill. App.3d 557 (public-interest exception to mootness for juvenile detention issues)
- Novak v. Rathnam, 106 Ill.2d 478 (mootness doctrine overview)
- People v. Calhoun, 377 Ill. App.3d 662 (defendant may elect benefit of mitigated sentence when new law is effective prior to sentencing)