In re Michael D.
69 N.E.3d 822
Ill.2015Background
- Michael D. (a juvenile) was tried in Cook County and found guilty of two counts of misdemeanor theft; one count was later vacated on reconsideration.
- The trial court, after the guilty finding, entered an order continuing the case under supervision for one year, ordered a TASC evaluation, and required $160 restitution; the court did not adjudicate him a ward and the written order stated “No finding or judgment of guilty entered.”
- Michael appealed, but the Appellate Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, concluding juvenile post-delinquency supervision orders are not final and no Supreme Court rule authorizes their interlocutory appeal.
- Supreme Court Rule 660(a) applies criminal rules only to final juvenile judgments; Rule 662 lists interlocutory juvenile appeals but does not include supervision orders; Rule 604(b) makes adult supervision appealable but by its terms applies to the Unified Code of Corrections, not juvenile proceedings.
- The Juvenile Court Act was amended (effective Jan. 1, 2014) to allow continuance under supervision after a delinquency finding (705 ILCS 405/5-615(1)(b)), raising the question whether such postguilt supervision orders became appealable.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted leave, held postdelinquency supervision orders are not final and no Supreme Court rule authorizes their appeal, affirmed the appellate court, and declined to amend the rules in this opinion, referring the issue to the rules committee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a juvenile continuance under supervision entered after a delinquency finding is a final, appealable order | Michael: postguilt supervision orders are final and thus appealable under the Court’s rules; if not plain, rules should be construed to allow appeal or be amended | State: supervision is not final; appealability exists only if a Supreme Court rule provides it; Rule 604(b) applies only to adult code; Rule 662 doesn’t include supervision | Held: Not final; continuance under supervision (preguilt or postguilt) is interlocutory and not a final judgment, so not appealable under existing rules |
| Whether any Supreme Court rule makes postdelinquency juvenile supervision orders appealable | Michael: rule interpretation or amendment can and should make them appealable (parity with adults) | State: Rule 604(b) applies to Unified Code only; Rule 660(a) incorporates criminal rules only for final juvenile judgments; Rule 662 does not include supervision | Held: No Supreme Court rule currently authorizes appeal of juvenile postguilt supervision orders |
| Whether denying appeal violates constitutional right to appeal or equal protection | Michael: barring appeal violates Article VI §6 and equal protection (treats juveniles differently from adults) | State: constitutional right to appeal applies only to final judgments; rulemaking power to allow interlocutory appeals rests with the Court; juveniles are not similarly situated to adults | Held: No constitutional violation—right to appeal covers final judgments only; juveniles not similarly situated for equal protection challenge |
| Whether the Court should sua sponte amend rules now to allow appeals of postguilt juvenile supervision orders | Michael: Court should modify Rule 604(b) or 660(a) now (parity, harm to juveniles) | State: legislative change indicates policy judgment; existing post-supervision remedies and confidentiality/expungement reduce harm; differing considerations warrant committee process | Held: Declined to amend rules in this opinion; issue appropriate for rules committee and public process rather than court action here |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Roberts, 214 Ill. 2d 106 (interpretative principles; statutes and rules construed similarly)
- In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 (outlines three phases of juvenile delinquency proceedings and identifies dispositional order as final)
- In re J.N., 91 Ill. 2d 122 (dispositional order is final judgment in juvenile case)
- Kirwan v. Welch, 133 Ill. 2d 163 (supervision is not a final judgment; supervision defers judgment)
- In re Commitment of Hernandez, 239 Ill. 2d 195 (definition of final judgment)
- In re B.C.P., 2013 IL 113908 (Court modified Rule 660(a) in that case to permit State appeals of interlocutory suppression orders; discussion of rulemaking discretion)
- A.M., 94 Ill. App. 3d 86 (appellate court held supervision orders under prior law were not appealable)