In re Michael D.
2015 IL App (1st) 143181
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Michael D., a 16‑year‑old, was charged with two counts of theft; after bench trial the court found him guilty of one count following reconsideration.
- On October 20, 2014 the court placed Michael on one year of "supervision" (continuance under supervision), adopting probation officer recommendations and setting a progress report date.
- The trial court’s written "Sentencing Order" included a preprinted statement "No finding or judgment of guilty entered," but the court had orally announced a finding of guilt earlier.
- The 2014 amendment to 705 ILCS 405/5‑615(1) permits a continuance under supervision both (a) before a finding of delinquency and (b) after a finding of delinquency if certain criteria are met, and it allows the court to vacate the delinquency finding while the minor is under supervision.
- Michael appealed the supervision order challenging the underlying finding of guilt; the State moved to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Michael) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review a post‑delinquency supervision order | Order is interlocutory and unappealable under juvenile rules; appellate court lacks jurisdiction | Supervision is a final dispositional sentence from which an appeal lies; should be treated like adult supervision | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; post‑guilt juvenile supervision is interlocutory and not reviewable on appeal under existing Supreme Court Rules |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Veronica C., 239 Ill. 2d 134 (Ill. 2010) (describing three stages of juvenile proceedings and that finding of guilt = delinquency)
- In re Danielle J., 2013 IL 110810 (Ill. 2013) (under prior law, continuance under supervision barred after finding of guilt)
- In re J.N., 91 Ill. 2d 122 (Ill. 1982) (finality rules: dispositional order in juvenile cases is final judgment)
- In re A.M., 94 Ill. App. 3d 86 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981) (supervision orders generally not immediately appealable)
- In re Shatavia S., 403 Ill. App. 3d 414 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) (restitution as condition of supervision may be appealable)
- In re B.C.P., 2013 IL 113908 (Ill. 2013) (appellate courts bound by existing supreme court rules on jurisdiction)