People ex rel. Alvarez v. Howard, 2016 IL 120729

Background

Defendant Luis Montano was 15 at the time of alleged offenses (March 29, 2013) and was indicted in criminal court for multiple counts including first‑degree murder.
At indictment time the Juvenile Court Act automatically excluded from juvenile jurisdiction minors at least 15 charged with certain serious offenses (705 ILCS 405/5‑130 (West 2014)).
Public Act 99‑258 amended §5‑130 (effective Jan. 1, 2016) to raise the automatic transfer age from 15 to 16 and removed some enumerated offenses; the amendment contained no savings clause for §5‑130.
On Feb 8, 2016 Montano moved to transfer the pending criminal case to juvenile court for a discretionary transfer hearing; the trial court granted the motion and transferred the case.
The State sought an original writ (mandamus/prohibition) in the Illinois Supreme Court arguing the amendment should apply prospectively only (relying on delayed effective date), so criminal court retained jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding the amendment is procedural and, under section 4 of the Statute on Statutes, applies retroactively to pending cases, so juvenile court jurisdiction was proper unless juvenile court exercises a discretionary transfer back to criminal court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Montano / Trial Judge)	Held
Whether the amendment raising automatic transfer age to 16 applies retroactively to pending cases	Delayed effective date (operation of Effective Date Act) shows legislature intended prospective application; thus criminal court retains jurisdiction	Amendment is procedural; legislature did not provide a temporal limit or savings clause for §5‑130, so section 4 of the Statute on Statutes makes it retroactive	Amendment is procedural and applies retroactively under section 4; transfer to juvenile court was proper
Whether the State may seek mandamus/prohibition instead of appeal	The State could have appealed under Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) because transfer effectively dismissed indictments	Transfer did not dismiss charges but only changed forum; order contemplated further proceedings in juvenile court	Original action not procedurally barred; writ may be considered but denied on merits
Whether the Effective Date Act determines temporal reach of an amendment silent on savings clause	Effective Date Act’s delayed implementation implies prospective-only application	Effective Date Act sets effective date but does not displace section 4’s rule on temporal reach; legislature’s selective use of savings clauses confirms this	Effective Date Act does not override section 4; delayed effective date alone is insufficient to make amendment prospective
Whether retroactive application is impracticable because of long pendency in criminal court	Retroactive transfer after three years is disruptive and impracticable	“Practicable” means feasible, not merely convenient; transferring is feasible; legislature’s choice controls absent constitutional infirmity	Retroactive application is practicable and constitutional concerns were not shown; transfer stands

Key Cases Cited

Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (retroactivity framework for statutes)
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Will County Collector, 196 Ill. 2d 27 (adopted Landgraf approach in Illinois)
People v. Patterson, 2014 IL 115102 (whether forum juvenile vs. criminal is procedural)
People v. Glisson, 202 Ill. 2d 499 (section 4: procedural changes apply retroactively)
Caveney v. Bower, 207 Ill. 2d 82 (section 4 supplies default temporal reach)
Doe A. v. Diocese of Dallas, 234 Ill. 2d 393 (legislature’s temporal‑reach choices honored via section 4)
People v. Ziobro, 242 Ill. 2d 34 (procedural amendments apply to ongoing proceedings)
People v. Bates, 124 Ill. 2d 81 (procedural statute change delayed by Effective Date Act applied retroactively)
People v. Richardson, 2015 IL 118255 (use of savings clause relevant to temporal reach)