In re M.I.
2013 IL 113776
| Ill. | 2013Background
- Respondent M.I., a minor, was adjudicated delinquent on multiple firearm offenses in Cook County.
- State moved to designate the case as an extended jurisdiction juvenile (EJJ) prosecution under 705 ILCS 405/5-810.
- Trial court granted the EJJ designation and imposed an indeterminate juvenile IDOC sentence plus a stayed 23-year adult sentence.
- Hearing on the EJJ designation occurred August 12, 2009, about 98 days after filing, with proffers and evidence instead of live testimony.
- Appellate Court and this court upheld the EJJ designation and stayed adult sentence, rejecting challenges to timing, vagueness standing, and Apprendi arguments.
- State later sought to revoke the stayed adult sentence based on a new drug offense by respondent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 60-day hearing deadline is mandatory or directory | State argues directory | M.I. argues mandatory | Directory; no voiding effect for delay |
| Whether EJJ is unconstitutionally vague and lacks guardrails | State asserts no vagueness | M.I. asserts vagueness and lack of guidance | No standing; no vagueness flaw shown |
| Whether Apprendi applies to EJJ designations | State contends Apprendi not implicated | M.I. argues Apprendi applies | Apprendi does not apply; EJJ dispositional and within statute’s framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. People, 217 Ill. 2d 43 (Ill. 2005) (mandatory/directory analysis—statutory timing without automatic nullification)
- In re Veronica C., 239 Ill. 2d 134 (Ill. 2010) (standing in vagueness challenge depends on direct injury)
- Omar M., 2012 IL App (1st) 100866 (1st Dist. 2012) (Apprendi does not apply to EJJ; dispositional, not adjudicatory)