In re M.I.
2011 IL App (1st) 100865
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Respondent M.I. was adjudicated delinquent on multiple firearm-related counts in Chicago; the State sought extended jurisdiction juvenile (EJJ) designation under 705 ILCS 405/5-810; the trial court imposed a juvenile sentence with a stayed adult sentence of 23 years under EJJ.
- Hearing on the EJJ designation occurred after delays beyond 60 days; court ultimately granted designation and stayed the adult sentence.
- Trial proceeded to a December 2009 bench trial before a different judge; evidence included officer testimony of firing, GSR results, and physical evidence recovered from the scene.
- Respondent testified he did not have a gun and was not the shooter; the trial court convicted him on multiple counts of aggravated discharge of a firearm, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, and related offenses; a reckless discharge conviction was vacated, and sentences were imposed as described.
- The appellate court affirmed, ruling the evidence supported guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the EJJ designation was properly treated as directory in timing, and the vagueness challenge to the EJJ statute lacked standing and was premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports at least one aggravated-discharge conviction | State argues sufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt. | M.I. contends gaps in gun recovery and GSR reliability undermine proof. | Yes; evidence sufficient beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Whether the 30– or 60-day EJJ hearing requirement was mandatory | State contends timing is mandatory for jurisdiction. | M.I. argues failure voids designation. | Directory, not mandatory; delayed hearing did not void designation. |
| Whether the EJJ statute is unconstitutionally vague and standing to raise it | State asserts no injury yet; standing unnecessary for this challenge. | M.I. argues vagueness and lack of guidance. | Statutory challenge premature for standing; no standing due to no revocation of stay. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Robinson, 217 Ill. 2d 43 (2005) (mandatory vs. directory analysis of procedural commands)
- In re Donald A.G., 221 Ill. 2d 234 (2006) (interpreting directory versus mandatory provisions)
- Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d 507 (2009) (directory presumption and conditions to show mandatory)
- In re J.W., 346 Ill. App. 3d 1 (2004) (prematurity of vagueness challenge to revocation of stay)
- In re Matthew M., 335 Ill. App. 3d 276 (2002) (ripe challenge to EJJ sentence as Apprendi-related issue)